4.7 Article

Plaster materials from waste calcium sulfate containing chemicals, organic fibers and inorganic additives

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 25, 期 8, 页码 3193-3203

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.03.004

关键词

Gypsum; Plaster; Hydration; Porous materials; Organic and inorganic additives

资金

  1. National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA)
  2. Reverse Brain Drain Project (Thailand)
  3. National Research University under Thailand's Office of the Higher Education Commission

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plaster materials made of waste gypsum or flue-gas-desulferized (FGD) gypsum with chemicals, organic and inorganic additives were studied. Glucose, citric acid and sodium bicarbonate were incorporated to retard the hydration of Plaster. Saw dust (SD), coconut fibers (CCF) and tobacco waste fiber (TWF) were incorporated to improve the thermal property. Diatomaceous earth (DE), fly ash (FA) and bottom ash (BA) were incorporated to improve the mechanical and thermal properties. Citric acid, TWF, sodium bicarbonate and glucose could be used to retard the setting time of fresh FGD-plaster to approximately 25 min comparable to that of commercial plaster while the other additives did not retard the hydration. In presences of these retarding additives, needle shaped gypsum changed into lower aspect ratio particles. SD, CCF, DE, FA and BA modified gypsum crystal growth and reduced the crystal length. These changes in morphology consequently gave significant alterations of mechanical and thermal properties of the materials. The additions of organic and inorganic additives resulted in a reduction of bulk density and increases in water absorption, and similar strength compared to commercial gypsum. A good thermal insulating property was obtained from the samples with the incorporation of coconut fiber, BA and DE. In addition, these samples had a good performance in fire proof. (C) 2011 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