4.6 Article

Impact of Fly Ashes from Combustion in Fluidized Bed Boilers and Siliceous Fly Ashes on Durability of Mortars Exposed to Seawater and Carbonation Process

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 14, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma14092345

关键词

siliceous fly ash; FBC fly ash; mortars; seawater corrosion; carbonation process

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article presents test results on the durability of cement-ash mortars under aggressive environmental impacts such as seawater, acid solutions, and carbonation. It was found that FBC ashes exhibit higher pozzolanic activity than CFA under normal conditions, and a mixture of FBC and CFA at 35% by mass each may be a favorable solution for future construction of coastal structures resistant to seawater.
This article presents test results of aggressive environment impact, i.e., seawater, acid solutions and carbonation, on the durability of cement-ash mortars. Tests were conducted on CEM I 42.5R-based mortars containing 35 to 70% by mass of FBC fly ash from brown and black coal combustion in a homogeneous form and mixtures of 35% by mass of siliceous fly ashes (CFA) and 35% by mass of FBC fly ash. It was demonstrated that in normal conditions (20 degrees C), FBC ashes showed higher pozzolanic activity than CFA, except when their curing temperature was increased to 50 degrees C. FBC ashes increased mortars' water demands, which led to an accelerated carbonation process. In an environment of Cl- ions, cement-ash mortars showed more Ca2+ ions leached and no expansive linear and mass changes, which, with their increased strength, might be an argument in favour for their future use in construction of coastal structures resistant to seawater. FBC ash content may be increased to 35% by mass, maintaining mortars' resistance to seawater, acid rain and carbonation. A favourable solution turned out to be a FBC and CFA mixed addition to cement of 35% by mass each, in contrast to mortars containing 70% of FBC fly ash in homogeneous form.

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