4.7 Article

Alkali-activation of fly ash and cement kiln dust mixtures for stabilization of demolition aggregates

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 186, 期 -, 页码 71-78

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.103

关键词

Cement; Kiln dust; Fly ash; Demolition; Stabilization; Construction

资金

  1. Thailand Research Fund under the TRF Senior Research Scholar program [RTA5980005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Utilization of industrial by-products such as cement kiln dust (CKD) and fly ash (FA) for increasing the strength and stiffness of demolition waste aggregates can be an optimal and sustainable solution for reducing the carbon footprint of the construction activities. Furthermore, this approach of incorporating waste materials as construction materials will also reduce the rapid depletion rate of natural resources. This research presents an optimization, by means of evaluating combinations of CKD + FA blends to utilize the rich source of calcium and silica and alumina in these by-products. The impact of sample preparation method is investigated. The use of alkaline solutions facilitates the progression of activation process in room temperature. Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA), Crushed Brick (CB) and Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) are three major components of the demolition waste stream and were used as the parent materials in this research for assessment of the efficiency of stabilization process. The durability of the stabilized materials under repeated loading was investigated. In addition, the resilient modulus of the stabilized materials were compared with the empirical models to assess the impact of confining stress and deviatoric stress on the moduli of the mixtures. The optimum ratio of FA:CKD of 50:50 showed the highest performance. The research indicates that alkali-activation of 15%CKD and 15%FA blended with C&D aggregates provided the optimum blend for the usage of these wastes as construction materials. (C) 2018 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