4.6 Article

Performance Evolutions of Tailing-Slag-Based Geopolymer Under Severe Conditions

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/21650373.2015.1030000

关键词

geopolymer; low-temperature curing; heating; strength; products; microstructure

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51102222]
  2. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China [2012AA06A109]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Geopolymer, synthesized from ore-dressing tailing of bauxite (hereinafter referred to as tailing) and ground-granulated blast furnace slag (hereinafter referred to as slag), is exposed to severe conditions such as the low temperature during molding, setting, and hardening and the elevated temperature after hardening. The effect of low-temperature curing and high-temperature heating on strength, hydration products, and microstructure is investigated. The results show that the low-temperature curing hinders geopolymerization, and thus, lower early-age strength than that of ambient temperature curing samples is observed. However, this delayed effect does not prevent long-term strength from gradually increasing. The 90-day compressive strength can reach up to 60 MPa, and that is comparable value to 28-day strength of ambient temperature curing samples. The observation of retarded geopolymerization reaction and microstructure formation in TG-DSC and ESEM analysis is an essential reason for delayed strength development in low temperature. More large pores (> 10 mu m) observed in pore structure analysis also result in the lower strength. After firing at elevated temperature up to 1000 degrees C, strength of the hardened low-temperature curing geopolymer mortars severely decrease by more than 40 MPa. The reasons for this deteriorationare the chemical processes involving gels decomposition and crystalline-phase formation and physical processes such as cracking. After heating at 1200 degrees C, an increased strength is obtained, which is a result of sintering and densification.

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

4.6
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