4.7 Article

A regional supplementary cementitious material for the cement industry: Pistachio shell ash

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 285, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124810

关键词

Pistachio shell ash; Blended cement; Mortar; Compressive strength; Microstructural analyses

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigates the potential of pistachio shell ash as a supplementary cementitious material, finding that up to 20% incorporation can improve the compressive strength of cement, while the presence of graphitic structures in the ash enhances the mechanical and microstructural properties of cement.
The recycling of agricultural wastes in cementitious products has recently been a trendy approach for the sustainability goals of the world as it ensures economic and ecological advantages in addition to the safe disposal of these wastes. In this regard, the potentiality of a biomass ash obtained from the incineration of pistachio shell to serve as a supplementary cementitious material is documented in the present study. An increase of up to 30% in the amount of pistachio shell ash resulted in the proportional increase of both water requirement and setting time of the ordinary Portland cement by up to 54% and 300%, respectively. The incorporation of up to 20% pistachio shell ash into the cement yielded specimens of comparable or higher compressive strength values relatively varying between 98% and 117% at the 28 days and later curing ages. Beside the cementitious property, it was observed that a presence of graphitic structures in the pistachio shell ash remarkably improved the mechanical and the microstructural properties of cement mortars. In conclusion, at least 10% incorporation of this ash into the cement is highly recommended for the cement industry as it is beneficial in achieving the highest ultimate (400-day) compressive strength and promotes no loss on the early (2-day) compressive strength. (C) 2020 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