4.7 Article

Development of a stoichiometric magnesium potassium phosphate cement (MKPC) for the immobilization of powdered minerals

期刊

CEMENT AND CONCRETE RESEARCH
卷 142, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2020.106346

关键词

Magnesium Potassium Phosphate (MKP); Cement; Magnesium-to-phosphate (Mg/PO4) molar ratio; Fine to cement (F/C) mass ratio; Swelling inhibition; Hazardous waste immobilization

资金

  1. Univ-Lille
  2. ORANO

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study developed a formulation of MKPC paste for hazardous waste immobilization, improving its properties by adding powdered waste. It found that the expansion phenomenon in the paste was caused by a pH gradient and sedimentation of MgO particles.
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC)-based materials are not systematically adapted for immobilizing industrial hazardous waste, e.g. for aluminium powder or plutonium waste sludge. In such case, Magnesium Potassium Phosphate Cements (MKPC) represent an interesting alternative. The originality of this research is to develop a formulation of a MKPC paste for hazardous waste immobilization, which incorporates a maximum amount of such waste, preferably in powdered form. To this purpose, a stoichiometric MKPC paste is selected, and its properties are improved by powdered waste addition. Firstly, the physico-chemical mechanisms generating expansion in stoichiometric MKPC paste are analyzed. Swelling is attributed to a pH gradient in the paste, due to the progressive sedimentation of MgO particles in the fresh mix. Secondly, over-stoichiometric MgO is replaced by varying amounts of minerals simulating the waste, of different mineralogy and granulometry, in order to achieve sufficient workability and no swelling. An optimal formulation is proposed, which incorporates powdered fly ash at a fine-to-cement mass ratio (F/C) of 1. Its mechanical performance and endogenous dimensional changes are comparable to typical over-stoichiometric pastes, and they stabilize between 7 and 28 days.

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