4.7 Article

Effect of using a combination of rice husk and olive waste ashes on high-strength concrete properties

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01486

关键词

High -strength concrete; Rice husk ash; Olive waste ash; Mechanical properties; Microstructures

资金

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research at Najran University
  2. Najran Region Research Program Funding program [NU/NAR/SERC/11/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the influence of using a combination of rice husk ash (RHA) and olive waste ash (OWA) as partial replacements of cement on high-strength concrete. The results show that the optimal proportions are 20% RHA and 5% OWA, which can increase the compressive strength of the concrete by approximately 58.7%.
Concrete is considered one of the most important building materials in all eras. One of the renowned items of concrete fabrication is ordinary Portland cement (OPC). In the production process of OPC, an immense quantity of CO2 gas is emitted. Consequently, local and trash materials are employed as partial substitutions for cement to construct eco-friendly concrete. In this research, the influence of using a combination of rice husk ash (RHA) and olive waste ash (OWA) at various proportions (i.e. 0 %, 5 %, 10 %, 15 %, 20 % and 25 % for RHA and 0 %, 2.5 %, 5 % and 7.5 % for OWA) as a partial replacement of cement on high-strength concrete is investigated. For this goal, 21 mixes are prepared. The fresh state properties are represented in slump values and mechanical properties, namely, compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, flexural strength, modulus of elasticity, and bond strength, where the compressive strength was evaluated at 7 days and 28 days while the other mechanical properties were evaluated at 28 days. Finally, the microstructure properties are evaluated. Results reveal that the optimum dosages for RHA and OWA are 20 % and 5 %, respectively. Using 20 % RHA with 5 % OWA increases compressive strength by approximately 58.7 %.

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