4.6 Article

Preparation of High-Porosity and High-Strength Ceramisites from Municipal Sludge Using Starch and CaCO3 as a Combined Pore-Forming Agent

期刊

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003552

关键词

Porous ceramisites; Sludge; Fly ash; Starch/calcium carbonate; Compressive strength

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [52078189, 51778213]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [B200202073]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A mixed pore-forming agent of starch and calcium carbonate was used to fabricate high-porosity and high-strength lightweight ceramisites from municipal sludge and fly ash waste. The proposed strategy shows promising potential in enhancing the utilization efficiency of solid waste resources.
A mixed pore-forming agent composed of starch and calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is proposed to assist the fabrication of highporosity and high-strength ceramisites from solid wastes of municipal sludge and fly ash. The maximum porosity of the sintered body without adding a pore-forming agent was only 38.5% under a premised strength higher than 8 MPa. In comparison, the porosity and compressive strength of the sintered body reached 68.7% and 13.2 MPa under the optimized conditions of CaCO3 and starch content at 10% and 15% by weight. The performance comparison with those in the literature indicates that the proposed strategy is promising for fabrication of high-performance lightweight ceramisites from solid municipal sludge and fly-ash wastes. A schematic diagram for the sintering and pore-forming mechanism was proposed to attribute the high porosity of the sintered ceramisites to a low-temperature combustion of starch and a hightemperature decomposition of CaCO3. Simultaneously, the volume shrinkage caused by starch and expansion by CaCO3 counteracted each other, thus preventing cracking of the ceramisites after sintering and ensuring the high strength of the sintered compacts. (C) 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.

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

4.6
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