4.6 Article

Influence of Ground Calcium Carbonate Waste on the Properties of Green Self-Consolidating Concrete Prepared by Low-Quality Bagasse Ash and Rice Husk Ash

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 14, 期 15, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma14154232

关键词

green self-consolidating concrete (gSCC); ground calcium carbonate waste (GCW); bagasse ash (BA); rice husk ash (RHA); workability; mechanical properties

资金

  1. Thammasat University Research Fund [TUGR 2/29/2562]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focuses on the potential of using GCW to enhance the performance of gSCC containing BA and RHA. The results indicate that GCW can significantly improve the filling and passing abilities of gSCC while reducing the consumption of OPC.
Bagasse ash (BA) and rice husk ash (RHA) are by-products from electricity power plants. Ground calcium carbonate waste (GCW) is the by-product of the mining of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) in the color pigment manufacturing industry. Both BA and RHA are classified as low-quality pozzolanic materials, differing from GCW, which contains a high calcium oxide (CaO) content that leads to products equivalent to the hydration reaction. Therefore, GCW is likely able to improve the properties of self-consolidating concrete (SCC) incorporating BA and RHA. This paper discusses the production of green self-consolidating concrete (gSCC) and identifies the benefit of using GCW in gSCC prepared by triple combined GCW (10 and 20 wt%), BA (10, 20, and 30 wt%), and RHA (20 wt%). The results indicate that the majority of the gSCC retain acceptable flowability. The differences in the levels of gSCC substitution and the V-funnel flow results show general correlations with the increase in GCW. The gSCC prepared by 10 wt% GCW associated with 10 wt% BA and 20 wt% RHA was improved significantly. The filling and passing abilities of the gSCC were improved by using GCW. In addition, gSCC achieved mechanical property development and was able to minimize the consumption of OPC by up to 40%.

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