4.7 Article

Preliminary screening of wood biomass ashes for partial resources replacements in cementitious materials

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 229, 期 -, 页码 1045-1064

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.321

关键词

Wood biomass ash; Cement-based materials; Cement partial replacement; Aggregate partial replacement; Quality ranking

资金

  1. Croatian Science Foundation [IP-2016-06-7701]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Worldwide there is a significant increase in amounts of wood biomass ash (WBA), a waste from wood biomass combustion process. In this case study, 21 different sources of wood biomass ash (WBA), namely fly ash, bottom ash, and mixed ash from 10 different power plants in the Republic of Croatia were characterised based on their physical-chemical properties. Compared to the criteria listed for the use of coal fly ash in the concrete industry (EN 450), most WBA5 exhibit higher loss of ignition values, high CaO and MgO contents, and higher total alkali and sulfur content. The results show a higher amount of alkalies and heavy metals in fly ash (WBA-F) as compared to bottom ash (WBA-B), but also their potential stabilisation in glassy phases. Based on WBA characterisation results, collected WBA5 were benchmarked and categorised for three different resource replacements in production of cement and concrete: 1) partial replacement of a raw material for clinker production; 2) partial cement replacement as a mineral admixture in cementitious composites, and 3) partial replacement of aggregates used for concrete production. For this a new method for WBA5 quality-ranking ordering is proposed, based on a normalisation approach relative to some quality criteria. The proposed preliminary screening methodology enables to address an important technological challenge in high variability in quality parameters of WBA5 originating from many different sources. It will help engineers in selecting from the huge number of available WBA5 types the most suitable ones, on which further valorisation laboratory tests can be better planned. (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