4.4 Article

Evaluation of Glass Powder-Based Geopolymer Stabilized Road Bases Containing Recycled Waste Glass Aggregate

期刊

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD
卷 2674, 期 1, 页码 22-32

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0361198119898695

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As the concept of sustainable pavement gains prominence, a growing number of industrial wastes and recycled materials have been utilized in the pavement industry to preserve natural resources. This study investigates the potential use of waste glass powder-based geopolymer cement as a stabilizing agent in recycled waste glass aggregate (GA) bases. Two recycled materials, waste glass powder (GP) and class F fly ash (FF), were used as the raw materials in the preparation of geopolymer. Virgin aggregate (VA) was replaced by GA at varying replacement ratios as the pavement base materials, and the mechanical behaviors before and after geopolymer stabilization were evaluated. Without stabilization, the incorporation of over 10% GA caused significant detrimental effects on the California bearing ratios (CBR) of base materials, which should be carefully managed in pavement construction. However, all geopolymer stabilized samples showed decent strength properties, indicating the effectiveness of geopolymer stabilization. The use of GA reduced the drying shrinkage of base samples, although the mechanical properties were compromised. During the sample preparation, a higher curing temperature and relative humidity resulted in better mechanical behaviors, and the surface of GA could dissolve in alkaline solution and involve in the geopolymerization at 40 degrees C. The microstructure and minerology of geopolymer stabilizer of base materials were characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and X-ray defraction (XRD) analyses. This study confirmed the promise of using waste glass-based pavement base materials as the greener substitutes and the potential synergy between waste glass recycling and the pavement industry.

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

4.4
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