4.7 Article

Feasibility of low-carbon electrolytic manganese residue-based supplementary cementitious materials

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 883, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163672

关键词

Supplementary cementitious materials; Electrolytic manganese residues; Sulfate activization; CO2 emission; Strength; Waste resource utilisation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, electrolytic manganese residues were used as sulfate activators to fabricate highly reactive supplementary cementitious materials. The results showed that appropriate dosing of electrolytic manganese residues promoted early strength development and compensated for the dilution effect through sulfate activation and micro-aggregate effect.
In this work, the electrolytic manganese residues (EMR) were used as sulfate activators for fly ash and granulated blast-furnace slag to fabricate highly reactive supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). The findings promote the im-plementation of a win-win strategy for carbon reduction and waste resource utilisation. The effects of EMR dosing on the mechanical properties, microstructure and CO2 emission of the EMR-doped cementitious materials are investi-gated. The results show that low dosing EMR (5 %) produced more ettringite, fostering early strength development. The fly ash-doped mortar strength increases and then decreases with the addition of EMR from 0 to 5 % to 5-20 %. It was found that blast furnace slag contributes less to strength than fly ash. Moreover, the sulfate activation and the micro-aggregate effect compensate for the EMR-induced dilution effect. The significant increase in strength contribu-tion factor and direct strength ratio at each age verifies the sulfate activation of EMR. The lowest EIF90 value of 5.4 kg center dot MPa-1 center dot m3 was achieved for the fly ash-doped mortar with 5 % EMR, suggesting the synergistic effect between fly ash and EMR optimised the mechanical properties while maintaining lower CO2 emissions.

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