4.7 Article

Alkali-activation of recycled construction and demolition waste aggregate with no added binder

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 205, 期 -, 页码 398-413

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.02.031

关键词

Unselected construction and demolition waste aggregate; Micro-demolition; Alkali-activation; Stabilization; Recycling; Base/subbase pavement layer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The alkaline-activation of aluminosilicate compounds present in fine particles of unselected construction and demolition waste (UCDW) aggregates is investigated here. The aim is to stabilize UCDW aggregates by adding an alkali-activating solution (AAS) composed of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate and then assess their potential employment in stabilized base/subbase road pavement layers. Contrary to the practice in other studies, no industrial-waste by-products (Le., fly ash, slag precursor) or other components containing silica-aluminates were added to the material. Workability, strength, and stiffness values were evaluated at laboratory temperature (around 25 degrees C) for 7, 28 and 60 days. The resulting mixtures were compared with those containing pure water and a diluted AAS (50% of pure MS and 50% of water). The resilient modulus of UCDW aggregates compacted with pure MS was considerably higher than those containing both diluted AAS and water only. Similar conclusions were drawn for the unconfined compressive strength and indirect tensile strength parameters, which for UCDW with pure AAS were comparable to those for ordinary cement-stabilized granular materials. These results demonstrate the potential offered by the alkali-activation of aluminosilicate compounds present in fine particles of UCDW. The microstructural observation, carried out by Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy, coupled with an elemental analysis performed by Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy, supported the successful alkali-activation of UCDW fines. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据