4.7 Article

Sulphuric acid resistance of ground ferronickel slag blended fly ash geopolymer mortar

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 313, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125505

关键词

Durability; Ground ferronickel slag; Gypsum; Microstructure; Sulphuric acid

资金

  1. Societe Le Nickel (SLN) , New Caledonia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The geopolymer mortar made by mixing ground ferronickel slag (GFNS) with fly ash exhibits better sulphuric acid resistance than neat fly ash geopolymer mortar, with lower strength loss observed after 12 months of acid exposure. This improvement is attributed to the formation of N-M-A-S-H gel, which creates a more compact microstructure and reduces sulphuric acid ingress. Additionally, the lower deterioration in fly ash-GFNS geopolymer compared to neat fly ash geopolymer is due to the formation of a lower amount of expansive gypsum, as indicated by QXRD analysis.
This study presents an investigation on the sulphuric acid resistance of geopolymer mortar made using different proportions of ground ferronickel slag (GFNS) with fly ash. The changes in mass, visual appearance, compressive strength and microstructure of the geopolymer mortars were evaluated after immersion in 3% sulphuric acid solution for up to one year. It was found that geopolymer mortar containing 75% GFNS showed better sulphuric acid resistance than the neat fly ash geopolymer mortar. The strength loss after 12 months of acid exposure were 43.67, 31.05, 24.15 and 22.54% in mortars using 0, 25, 50 and 75% GFNS, respectively. The improvement of acid resistance of fly ash-GFNS geopolymer is ascribed to the formation of N-M-A-S-H gel which reduced the ingress of sulphuric acid by providing a more compact microstructure. Moreover, the lower deterioration of fly ash-GFNS geopolymer compared to neat fly ash geopolymer is considered to be due to the formation of lower amount of expansive gypsum in the fly ash-GFNS geopolymer as shown in the QXRD analysis.

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