4.7 Article

Biomass fly ash effect on fresh and hardened state properties of cement based materials

期刊

COMPOSITES PART B-ENGINEERING
卷 77, 期 -, 页码 1-9

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2015.03.019

关键词

Recycling; Rheological properties; Physical properties; Mechanical testing

资金

  1. Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT-Portugal) [SFRH/BD/32500/2006]
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K025597/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. EPSRC [EP/K025597/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cement pastes and mortars were prepared by replacing ordinary Portland cement with different dosages of biomass fly ashes (0, 10, 20 and 30% BFA) whilst in dry condition. The effect of BFA on the flow behaviour (spread on table and rheology), setting time, temperature of hydration and electrical resistivity was studied in this experimental research. Increasing the amount of BFA in the compositions required extra dosage of water, as a result of particles fineness, tendency for agglomeration and retention/absorption of water molecules. As a consequence, the relative amount of free water diminishes and the flowability is poorer. The introduction of BFA also led to an increase in setting time, while the resistivity obtained from the impedance measurements tends to be lower than the reference paste (ash-free). The higher concentration of mobile species in the pore solution, namely sodium ions introduced by the ash, explains that tendency. The hydration temperature of cement pastes tends to decrease with the level of cement to ash replacement. Between the two tested ashes (from grate and fluidized sand bed furnaces), differences in particle size and shape, in the amount of residual organic matter and concentration of inorganic components define minor changes in the workability and setting behaviour. Therefore, the introduction of biomass fly ashes affects the hardened state features but do not compromise them. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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