4.7 Article

Sulfate soils stabilization with magnesium-based binders

期刊

APPLIED CLAY SCIENCE
卷 135, 期 -, 页码 457-464

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.clay.2016.10.033

关键词

Sulfate soil; Soil stabilization; Valorization; Construction material; Ettringite

资金

  1. Magnesitas de Navarra S.A. Company [OTRI 2011021091]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sulfate soils' stabilization is a very interesting subject with technical, economic and environmental implications. The difficulty of their stabilization is due to the fact that the usual stabilizer additives are based on calcium. In these soils, sulfate combines with the calcium from the additive and the aluminum from the clay, resulting in a highly hydrated expansive mineral named ettringite. This provokes the swelling of the treated material and even its destruction. This study analyzes the result of the substitution of the calcium based additives by one alternative additive based on magnesium, an industrial byproduct named PC-8, in the stabilization of five different sulfate soils. From a mechanical point of view soils treated with PC-8 reached similar resistance values to the lime treated ones, of about 2-3 MPa for 4% dosage and 2-5 MPa for 8% dosage, being usually better with the PC-8 results than with the lime ones. When PC-8 was combined with GGBS the resistance values increased up to 11-13 MPa and the lime-GGBS reached the 6-7 MPa. The natural swelling of the soils treated with PC-8 decreased substantially and maintained constant even for immersion at long-term. In the case of the soils treated with lime, long-term swelling increased up to very high values even in the case of soils without natural swelling. XRD analysis of these samples demonstrated the existence of ettringite in 4 of the 5 soils when they were treated with lime and there was not expansive minerals in the PC-8 treated soils, agreeing with the swelling observed behavior of the soils when treated with both additives. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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