4.7 Article

Effect of surface treatment of apricot shell on the performance of lightweight bio-concrete

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 229, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.116859

关键词

Apricot shell; Lightweight aggregate; Surface treatment; Mechanical properties; Magnesium sulfate attack

资金

  1. Sichuan University [2018YJSY091]
  2. Key Laboratory of Geological Hazards Mitigation for Mountainous Highway and Waterway, Chongqing Municipal Education Commission Chongqing Jiaotong University [kfxm2018-01]
  3. China Scholarship Council (CSC) [201806240037]
  4. Eindhoven University of Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects of different surface treatment of apricot shell (AS) on the performance of concrete were investigated. Five surface treatments were used to treat the AS, including soaking AS with cement solution (CS), waterproof agent (WP), sodium silicate (SS), white latex (WL), and coating AS with wood oil (WO). The results showed that the WP and CS treatments improved the physical properties, mechanical strength and resistance to magnesium sulfate of apricot shell bio-concrete (ASC). The WP treatment increased the density and decreased the porosity and water absorption of concrete. The compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, flexural strength, modulus of elasticity of the WP treated bioconcrete improved 9.3%, 16.3%, 15.1% and 19.2%, respectively, compared to the untreated mixture. The SS and WL treatments had a negligible influence on the performance of ASC. However, the WO treatment significantly increased the porosity, which resulted in a reduction in mechanical properties and resistance to magnesium sulfate. The WP and CS treatments enhanced the resistance to magnesium sulfate of ASC. It is concluded that the AS treated with waterproof agent is an effective method to enhance both the mechanical properties and durability of the developed lightweight bio-concrete. (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