Journal of Ceramic Processing Research

Ceramic Processing Research Center (한양대학교 세라믹연구소)
권호 표지

Effect of addition of As-received IGCC slag in making geopolymer

  • Kim, Yootaek (Department of Materials Engineering, Kyonggi University) ;
  • Chae, Taesung (Department of Materials Engineering, Kyonggi University)
  • Published : 2018.10.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

It is a known fact that the cement production is responsible for almost 5% of total worldwide $CO_2$ emission, the primary factor affecting global warming. Geopolymers are valuable as ordinary Portland cement (OPC) substitutes because geopolymers release 80% less $CO_2$ than OPC and have mechanical properties sufficiently similar to those of OPC. Therefore, geopolymers have proven attractive to eco-friendly construction industries. Geopolymers can be fabricated from aluminum silicate materials with alkali activators such as fly ash, blast furnace slag, and so on. Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) slag has been used for fabricating geopolymers. In general, IGCC slag geopolymers are fabricated with finely ground and sieved (<128 mesh) IGCC slag. The grinding process of as-received IGCC slag is one of the main costs in geopolymer production. Therefore, the idea of using as-received IGCC slag (before grinding the IGCC slag) as aggregates in the geopolymer matrix was introduced to reduce production cost as well as to enhance compressive strength. As-received IGCC slag (0, 10, 20, 30, 40 wt%) was added in the geopolymer mixing process and the mixtures were compared. The compressive strength of geopolymers with an addition of 10 wt% as-received IGCC slag increased by 19.84% compared to that with no additional as-received IGCC slag and reached up to 41.20 MPa. The enhancement of compressive strength is caused by as-received IGCC slag acting as aggregates in the geopolymer matrix like aggregates in concrete. The density of geopolymers slightly increased to $2.1-2.2g/cm^3$ with increasing slag addition. Therefore, it is concluded that a small addition of as-received IGCC slag into the geopolymer can increase compressive strength and decrease the total cost of the product. Moreover, the direct use of as-received IGCC slag may contribute to environment protection by reducing process time and $CO_2$ emission.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)

References

  1. R. Kajaste and M. Hurme, J. Cleaner Prod. 112[5] (2016) 4041-4051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.055
  2. D. Yang, L. Fan, F. Shi, Q. Liu, and Y. Wang, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 119 (2017) 60-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.06.017
  3. J. Davidovis, in "Geopolymer Chemistry and Applications"(Institute Geopolymer Press, 2008), p. 3-75.
  4. S. Salehi, M. J. Khattak, A. H. Bwala, and F. Karbalaei, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 38 (2017) 323-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.12.042
  5. F. G. M. Aredes, T. M. B. Campos, J. P. B. Machado, K. K. Sakane, G. P. Thim, and D. D. Brunelli, Ceram. Int. 41[6] (2015) 7302-7311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2015.02.022
  6. J. G. S. van Jaarsveld and J. S. J. van Deventer, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 38[10] (1999) 3932-3941. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie980804b
  7. A. Autef, E. Joussein, G. Gasgnier, and S. Rossignol, J. Non-Cryst. Solids. 358[21] (2012) 2886-2893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2012.07.015
  8. L. Vickers, W. D. A. Rickard, and A. van Riessen, Thermochim. Acta. 580[20] (2014) 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2014.01.020
  9. L. Duan, S. Sun, L. Yue, W. Qu, and Y. Yang, Energy. 87 (2015) 490-503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.011
  10. I. I. Martin, A. A. Echeverria, and E. Garcia-Romero, J. Environ. Manage. 129 (2013) 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.055
  11. J. S. Sim, C. W. Park, S. J. Park, and Y. J. Kim, J. Korean Soc. Civ. Eng. A. 26[1A] (2006) 213-218.
  12. A. V. Alves, T. F. Vieira, J. de Brito, and J. R. Correia, Constr. Build. Mater. 64 (2014) 103-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.037
  13. P. Posi, P. Thongjap, N. Thamultree, P. Boontee, P. Kasemsiri, and P. Chindaprasirt, Constr. Build. Mater. 127 (2016) 450-456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.09.105
  14. Yliniemi, Paiva, Ferreir, Tianine, Illikainen, Const. Build. Mater. 131 (2017) 784-792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.017
  15. P. Posi, C. Teerachanwit, C. Tanutong, S. Limkamoltip, S. Lertnimoolchia, V. Sata, and P. Chindaprasirt, Mater. Des. 52 (2013) 580-586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.06.001
  16. 1R. Embong, A. Kusbiantoro, N. Shafiq, and M. F. Nuruddin, J. Clean. Pro. 112[1] (2016) 816-822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.058
  17. L. Zhang, F. Zhang, M Liu, and X. Hu, Chem. Eng. J. 313 (2017) 74-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.12.046
  18. Karamloo, M. Mazloom, and G. Payganeh, Constr. Build. Mat. 123 (2016) 508-515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.061
  19. A. Woode, D. K. Amoah, I. A. Aguba, and P. Ballow, Civil. Eng. Res. 7[5] (2015) 7-12.
  20. K. Ashalatha, P. Poornima, D. M. Reddy, and M. V. S. Reddy, Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 3[5] (2016) 2796-2803.