4.7 Article

Influence of curing methods and concentration of NaOH on strength of the synthesized alkaline activated ground slag-ultrafine palm oil fuel ash mortar/concrete

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 66, 期 -, 页码 541-548

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.037

关键词

Curing; NaOH-concentration; Palm-oil-fuel-ash; Activator ratios; Slag; Compressive strength; Mortar; Concrete; Alkaline activated binder; Geopolymer

资金

  1. Universiti Sains Malaysia through the Research University Grant Scheme [1001/PAWAM/814191]
  2. Centre for Engineering Research, Research Institute, King Fand University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Efficiency in energy-utilization in the adoption of curing methods and effects of NaOHaq concentration towards achieving a better strength performance in the synthesis of alkaline activated ground-steel-slag (GSS) with ultrafine palm-oil-fuel ash (UPOFA) - (AAGU) mortars and concrete prompted this study. AAGU samples were prepared with the combined activators (Na2SiO3aq + NaOHaq: (Na2SiO3aq + NaOHaq)/ (GSS + UPOFA) = 0.5) while different curing methods namely: oven-cured (60 degrees C for 24 h), water-ponding and room-cured (25 degrees C) were also investigated. The findings showed that 76% and 50% of 28-day strength in the oven-cured mortars could be attained in water-ponding and room-curing, respectively. Regardless of the curing methods, GSS/(GSS+UPOFA) and Na2SiO3aq/NaOHaq-ratios could significantly affect the strength development in AAGU mortars. The strength development in AAGU concrete depends on the NaOHaq concentration (NC). X-ray diffractogram (XRD), Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectra, and scanning-electron-microscope coupled with energy-dispersive-spectroscopy (SEM + EDS) showed that strong alkali (10 M-NaOHaq) influenced the microstructural-density, reduced carbonation and improved binder amorphousity than the mild alkali (4 M-NaOHaq). (C) 2014 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