Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Antioxidant Production for Hygienic Disinfection Using Bioextractants from Lavender and Oregano Distillation Process
Previous Article in Journal
Exhaust Emissions from Euro 6 Vehicles in WLTC and RDE—Part 2: Verification by Experimental Measurement
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 16
Issue 22
10.3390/en16227535
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Recycling Ash and Slag Waste from Thermal Power Plants to Produce Foamed Geopolymers

by
Elena A. Yatsenko
,
Boris M. Goltsman
,
Andrey I. Izvarin
*,
Viktor M. Kurdashov
,
Victoria A. Smoliy
,
Anna V. Ryabova
and
Lyudmila V. Klimova
Department “General Chemistry and Technology Silicates”, Platov South-Russian State Polytechnic University (NPI), Prosveshcheniya Street 132, Rostov Region, 346428 Novocherkassk, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2023, 16(22), 7535; https://doi.org/10.3390/en16227535
Submission received: 13 October 2023 / Revised: 9 November 2023 / Accepted: 10 November 2023 / Published: 12 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Section B2: Clean Energy)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Ash and slag waste (ASW) from coal combustion creates significant environmental and economic challenges. A promising method of ASW recycling is alkali activation with geopolymer material formation. This study investigates the influence of activating solution components (sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate) on the formation of porous geopolymers using ASW of different origins. The sodium hydroxide content of 0–4 wt.% and the sodium silicate content of 17–25 wt.% were studied. An increase in sodium hydroxide resulted in decreased density, but it adversely affected the strength. An increase in sodium silicate led to a compromised porous structure with relatively high density and compressive strength. An optimal composition, S19N3, comprising 3 wt.% of sodium hydroxide and 19 wt.% of sodium silicate obtained porous geopolymers with uniformly distributed 1.4–2 mm pores and a corresponding density of 335 kg/m3, a compressive strength of 0.55 MPa, a porosity value of 85.6%, and a thermal conductivity value of 0.075 W/(m·K). A mechanism for porous geopolymer formation was developed, including the interaction of alkaline components with ASW and a foaming agent, foaming, curing, and densification. The mechanism was examined using ASW from the Severodvinsk CHPP-1. This study allows for the optimization of geopolymer mixtures with various waste sources and the utilization of waste materials in the construction industry.

1. Introduction

Presently, coal is one of the most economical sources of energy [1]. Coal combustion accounts for approximately 40% of global electricity production [2]. The combustion of coal results in the formation of ash and slag waste (ASW), which primarily contains unburned carbon (5–25%), fly ash (30–80%), and slag (10–70%), depending on the coal type and combustion process [3].
At present, the Russian Federation deals with approximately 1.6 billion tons of accumulated ASW and an annual rate of ASW production of up to 80 million tons [2,4,5]. This accumulation spans more than 25 thousand hectares. Within the Southern Federal District, the biggest coal-based thermal power plant is the Novocherkassk State District Power Plant (NSDPP), which generates 2258 MW. This facility alone consumes around 3.4 million tons annually, resulting in 0.8–1 million tons of ASW. The amassed waste at the NSDPP ash dump surpasses 40 million tons and occupies an area of 250 hectares.
The storage of ASW is a significant environmental and economic problem [6,7]. Hazardous substances present in ASW can leach out from ash dumps, polluting the environment and contaminating atmospheric, terrestrial, and ground water and surface water compartments. Such contamination is harmful for human health [8,9]. At present, the level of ASW processing in Russia stands at approximately 4–5%.
The utilization of ash and slag waste as a raw material in various industrial sectors offers the opportunity to not only reduce the environmental impact on adjacent landfill areas but also to generate significant economic benefits. Two main methods are used for ASW utilization. The first approach is metal extraction [10], such as the recovery of alumina for subsequent aluminum production, given that the aluminum oxide content in the ashes of certain coal types can be up to 30%. Still, metal extraction is impractical to waste management as it fails to address the issue of the ash dump footprint size. The second utilization method, recycling ASW for further use, seems to be better as it addresses both sides of the issue. There are five principal ways of utilizing ASW (Figure 1) [11,12,13,14]:
-
Producing building materials (cement, bricks, blocks, and geopolymers);
-
Producing road construction materials;
-
Agriculture (soil stabilizers, fertilizers, etc.);
-
Producing various fillers;
-
Producing other materials (sorbents, zeolites, etc.).
Energies 16 07535 g001
Figure 1. Areas of application of ash and slag waste.
Figure 1. Areas of application of ash and slag waste.
Energies 16 07535 g001
The specific method of processing ASW into a resulting material depends on many factors. However, several stages are required for every processing technology. The first stage is drying ASW to a constant mass since these waste materials are stored with exposure open air. Further processing involves milling and sieving to reach a required particle size. The resulting powder can be employed in diverse applications.
The primary segment of ASW recycling is its incorporation into building materials. The utilization of ASW to manufacture cement, dry mixes, concrete, and mortars allows for cost reductions of 15 to 30% [15,16]. Here, ASW powder is added to other raw materials, and the obtained mixture is used as an ordinary binder. In the case of cement production (or other construction materials with a thermal treatment stage), the mixture can be molded and fired according to the synthesis mode. ASW serves as a versatile material for road construction, and it is applicable to road embankment backfilling, foundations, and all layers of highways. Here, ASW is milled to a required particle size (coarse or fine) and compacted to create a layer of pavement. This approach also leads to cost savings [17,18]. Using ASW as a filler in concrete mix is another readily accessible utilization method [19,20]. This technology allows for cost reductions in the manufacturing of heavy concrete, benefiting paving, finishing stones, monolithic building construction, etc.
It should be noted that utilizing ASW offers several benefits over using conventional building materials. For example, it eliminates the need for extra costs in the extraction and initial processing stages. ASW’s proximity to infrastructure also allows for substantial savings in transportation costs. The above-mentioned considerations show that ASW processing is an important research area.
ASW processing also seems to be beneficial to the synthesis of geopolymers. Geopolymer production relies on raw materials containing aluminosilicates like ash, boiler slag, microsilica, rice husk, dehydroxylated clays, volcanic ash, pozzolans, granulated blast furnace slag, and kaolinite, either separately or in various combinations [21,22,23,24]. The recycling of waste generated by thermal power plants operating on solid fuels (producing ash, slag, and ash–slag mixtures) is particularly promising, given the existing substantiation accumulation of such waste and its role in environment pollution.
The most promising class of geopolymer materials in contemporary construction is foamed geopolymers [25,26,27,28,29]. These materials are utilized in the construction of energy-efficient buildings [30], reducing both fossil fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions [31]. A fundamental distinction in the production of foamed geopolymers versus conventional porous materials is the increased concentration of the alkaline component, commonly referred to as the alkaline activator in the raw mixture. This alkaline activator plays a major role in promoting the synthesis of low-basic phases including hydrosilicate and alkaline aluminosilicate components in hydration products. These phases exhibit superior binding capacities and reduced solubility.
The above-mentioned activators are solutions of sodium and potassium hydroxide and sodium and potassium silicates [32]. The preferred activators are sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium silicate (Na2SiO3), as the more efficient activators, potassium hydroxide (KOH) and potassium silicate (K2SiO3), have higher costs [33,34].
Sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate (waterglass) are rarely used separately as activating agents. The industry mostly uses mixtures of these compounds [33]. The silicate-to-hydroxide proportion in those mixtures determines the reaction system modulus, which is a very important parameter of geopolymer development. Variations of the modulus can significantly alter the polymerization degree, defining both the macro- and microstructures of the produced material [35,36].
Table 1 provides examples of sodium silicate and hydroxide ratios reported in the literature. The sodium hydroxide quantities presented in the table were recalibrated from their dissolved states to the dry powder form, which is a clarification step needed for data consistency, given that the sample composition was computed based on pure NaOH in this study. This table also demonstrates variability in the waterglass/NaOH ratios presented in the existing literature. So, the optimal quantities of these components within the activating solution are still unclear.
The process of foamed geopolymer material synthesis depends on the interaction between the foaming agent and activation solution. It is known that variations in the amount of alkaline activator (such as Na2SiO3 and NaOH) have stronger effects on the structure formation than changes in the foaming agent content or temperature. Alkaline hydroxide takes part in aluminum redox reactions, whereas sodium silicate suppresses those reactions [47]. It is also advisable to minimize the presence of metallic components within the geopolymer structure, as they increase heat conduction [48].
Considering the above-mentioned factors, the general regularities of “alkaline activator-silicate raw material” are described for dense geopolymers. But there is still no overall model describing the influences of alkaline activator components on geopolymerization stages when synthesizing porous geopolymers. Also, the existing studies do not discuss the optimal content and ratio of alkaline activator components for the production of foamed geopolymers based on ASW. This aim is of particular interest because geopolymer foaming involves additional physical–chemical interactions of mixture components that can affect the resulting structures. Thus, the purpose of this work is to study the influence of the activating solution components (sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate) on the porous structure and properties of porous geopolymers to discover the optimal content and ratio of these components and to describe a mechanism of porous geopolymer structure formation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

The main raw material employed in foamed geopolymer synthesis was ash and slag waste (ASW) from the Novocherkassk State District Power Plant (NSDPP) and from the Severodvinsk Combined Heat and Power Plant-1 (CHPP-1). ASW was formed during joint disposal of fly ash and boiler slag at the dump of a power plant. The chemical composition of this material is detailed in Table 2. The activating solution components were sodium hydroxide with a purity of 99% (LenReactive, Russia) and sodium silicate with a silicate modulus of 2 and a water content of 52 wt.% (Sil-Ex, Russia). Additionally, the foaming mixture comprised 99% pure aluminum powder of ASD-1 grade with a specific surface area of 148 m2/g (GC Metal Energo Holding, Russia).

2.2. Synthesis of Foamed Geopolymer Materials

The production of geopolymer materials adhered to the following procedural methodology (as illustrated in Figure 2): initially, a 12 M sodium hydroxide solution was prepared by meticulously blending NaOH powder with deionized water. Subsequently, this resultant solution was combined with sodium silicate, followed by the addition of ASW powder. Ultimately, a foaming agent, namely aluminum powder, was introduced into the mixture. This mixture was thoroughly stirred, cast into molds, and subjected to a curing process at a temperature of 80 °C for 12 h.
Table 3 presents the comprehensive component compositions of the raw mixture, with the nomenclature structured according to the following convention: “S” signifies sodium silicate, followed by the respective quantity of sodium silicate, while “N” denotes sodium hydroxide, followed by the corresponding quantity of sodium hydroxide. For example, the sample designated as “S21N3” signifies a composition comprising 21 wt.% of sodium silicate and 3 wt.% of sodium hydroxide.
The compositions of the raw mixtures were devised systematically, initially by determining the optimal quantity of sodium hydroxide (as represented by samples S21N0, S21N1, S21N2, S21N3, and S21N4). Subsequently, the optimal quantity of sodium silicate was ascertained, utilizing the previously determined optimal amount of sodium hydroxide (resulting in samples S17N3, S19N3, S23N3, and S25N3). A verification of the proposed mechanism of the porous geopolymer formation and the influence of activating solution components on porous geopolymer formation was conducted by using ASW sourced from the Severodvinsk CHPP-1 thermal power plant, situated in a distinct region of Russia, and by employing substantially different coal sources. Five mixture compositions were developed. The “S.” index in each mixture number denotes the utilization of ASW sourced from the Severodvinsk CHPP-1: S.S19N3—a composition featuring the previously found optimal sodium silicate and hydroxide content; S.S19N1—a composition with an insufficient sodium hydroxide content; S.S19N5—a composition with an excessive sodium hydroxide content; S.S15N3—a composition with an insufficient sodium silicate content; and S.S25N3—a composition with an excessive sodium silicate content.

2.3. Methods

The density of the samples (d), kg/m3, was determined as the ratio of the mass to the volume of the sample according to Equation (1):
d = m/V·1000, kg/m3
where m—sample mass, g; V—sample volume, cm3.
The porosity (P), %, shows the volume of pores in a porous material, which is defined as the ratio of bulk density db to the true density dt in the synthesized geopolymer. True density of ash and slag waste was determined using the pycnometric method. True density of ASW from Novocherkassk SDPP was 2332 kg/m3, and ASW from Severodvinsk CHPP-1—2034 kg/m3. The porosity was calculated according to Equation (2):
P = (1 − db/dt) · 100, %
where db—sample bulk density, kg/m3; dt—sample true density, kg/m3.
The ultimate compressive strength (R), MPa, was determined using a test press (TP-1-350, TestPress, Misailovo village, Russia) with a force measurement range of 0.1 to 350 kN with a measurement accuracy of ±2% in the range of 0.1 to 7 kN, and with a measurement accuracy of ±1% in the range from 7 to 350 kN. The ultimate compressive strength was calculated according to Equation (3):
R = 1000 · P/S, MPa
where P—breaking load, kN; S—sample area, m2.
The thermal conductivity, W/(m·K), was determined using a thermal conductivity meter (ITP-MG4’100/Zond’, SKB StroyPribor, Chelyabinsk, Russia) using the method of stationary heat flow [4].
An analysis of multi-factor regression models and the creation of 3D surface models and 2D contour line maps were conducted using the “Multiple Regression” module within the STATISTICA 10.0.1011 software. The pore size distribution was statistically analyzed based on images of geopolymer material structures using the Nano Measurer 1.2 software.
The phase composition was determined using powder X-ray phase analysis (XRD). The samples were examined using an ARLX’TRA X-ray diffractometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Geopolymer samples were preliminary milled to a particle size of less than 40 µm. Data interpretation was carried out using the Crystallographica Search-Match Version 3 software package of the ICDD PDF 2 database (International Center for Diffraction Data).
The analysis of microstructure and elemental composition was conducted using polished cubic samples with a side length of 1.5 cm. After placing the samples on the sample-loading platform, the electron microscope chamber was vacuumed to prevent the influence of impurities in the air on the electron trajectory. Then, samples were studied using Quanta 200 scanning electron microscope (FEI Company, Hillsboro, OR, USA) with an EDAX Genesis XVS 30 X-ray microanalysis system (FEI Company, Hillsboro, OR, USA).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Technological Properties of Foamed Geopolymers

In order to determine the optimal quantity of sodium hydroxide to achieve the desired technological properties of foamed geopolymer materials, a range of content levels ranging from 0 wt.% to 4 wt.% was considered. The resultant structures of the geopolymer materials obtained are illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3 shows that the formation of a porous structure is virtually nonexistent when sodium hydroxide is absent, as evidenced by sample S21N0. Relying only on sodium silicate as the activating solution does not lead to a required level of particle dissolution that is essential for the construction of an aluminosilicate framework, primarily due to its inadequate OH− ion content [49]. As the alkali content escalates, there is a proportional increase in the pore size. Consequently, a higher alkali concentration within the reaction mixture is correlated with heightened foaming activity in the geopolymer material. An elevation in the Na2O concentration within the geopolymer improves the solubility of the amorphous silicon dioxide and aluminum oxide precursors. Consequently, larger quantities of dissolved Si and Al ions engage in the geopolymer synthesis reaction, leading to excessive synthesis products [32]. Sample S21N4, for instance, demonstrates the presence of extensive, irregular pores attributed to an excess of alkali and overly intensive foaming.
The process of pore formation in the porous geopolymer materials is based on the interaction between the alkaline component and aluminum powder. Aluminum powder takes part in a redox reaction within an alkaline solution, accompanied by the evolution of hydrogen, as expressed in Equation (4) [50]:
2Al + 2NaOH + 6H2O = 2Na[Al(OH)4] + 3H2↑
The presence of aluminum in an alkaline solution creates a low-density foamed geopolymer when the viscosity of the mixture allows for pore formation. Table 4 provides a comprehensive overview of the properties exhibited by the resulting geopolymer materials.
Research into the determination of the optimal sodium hydroxide quantity for foamed geopolymer synthesis revealed that the S21N3 sample exhibited the most favorable properties: a medium density of 349 kg/m3 and a strength of 0.57 MPa. Conversely, samples S21N0, S21N1, and S21N2 displayed higher densities, describing them as less suitable for thermal insulation. Sample S21N4 has a lower density, but it also has strength lower by 35% compared to S21N3. Hence, a sodium hydroxide content of 3 wt.% was selected for the subsequent investigations.
In the synthesis of geopolymers using energy generation waste, the quantity of the activating solution in the reaction mixture should range from 17 wt.% to 25 wt.% (expressed as the ratio of the activating solution to the primary raw material) depending on its chemical composition [51,52,53]. Consequently, to explore the impact of the sodium silicate quantity on the technological properties of geopolymer materials, concentrations of 17, 19, 21, 23, and 25 wt.% were chosen.
Elevating the sodium silicate concentration increases the Si/Al ratio and the viscosity of the reaction system, thereby promoting a more uniform pore distribution (as shown in Figure 3) [32]. This increased viscosity hinders the pores’ coalescence, resulting in a more homogeneous and finely tuned pore structure within the geopolymer matrix [54]. The presence of uniformly distributed small pores leads to a microstructure that closely approximates the ideal two-phase state [55]. Consequently, samples S19N3 and S21N3 exhibited superior thermal insulation characteristics. In contrast, the geopolymer materials synthesized with lower silicate concentrations displayed non-uniformly distributed macro-pores of substantial diameters (for example, S17N3). Conversely, S23N3 and S25N3 contained excessive sodium silicate, causing extensive fluidity and causing foam collapse.
The conducted research aimed at identifying the optimal quantity of sodium silicate for foamed geopolymer synthesis revealed that the S19N3 sample, containing 19 wt.% of sodium silicate, exhibited the most favorable properties. This sample achieved a moderate density of 335 kg/m3 and a compressive strength of 0.55 MPa. It is known that foamed geopolymers should exhibit low density values and uniform structures with the highest possible compressive strength [56,57,58]. The properties obtained in this study are consistent with the data in the literature. For instance, in [47], porous geopolymers based on fly ash and an aluminum powder foaming agent were synthesized with a density of 630 kg/m3 and a compressive strength of 0.4 MPa. In [59], porous geopolymers were synthesized using fly ash and blast furnace slag with a complex foaming agent comprising sodium dodecyl sulfate, dodecyl alcohol, carboxy methylcellulose sodium, and anhydrous ethanol. The resulting geopolymers have a density of 351 kg/m3 and a compressive strength of 0.5 MPa. In [58], metakaolin-based geopolymers with an H2O2 solution foaming agent exhibited a minimum density of 471 kg/m3 with a compressive strength of 0.4 MPa. The authors of [44] synthesized geopolymers based on fly ash with metakaolin additives with an H2O2 foaming agent, and they had the lowest achieved density of 440 kg/m3 with a compressive strength of 0.26 MPa. Korniejenko et al. [60] synthesized foamed geopolymers with a density of 267 kg/m3 and a compressive strength of 0.82 MPa. To achieve such properties, they used 36% of perhydrol as a foaming agent and a foam stabilizer–polyglycolic acid. The authors of [61] describe fly ash-based geopolymer samples using a protein foaming agent with a density of 235 kg/m3 and a compressive strength of 0.51 MPa. Thus, to improve the geopolymer properties, it is promising to not only adjust the activating solution, but also to modify the type and ratio of the foaming agent. It is also promising to add surface-active substances for foam stabilization, which will be the aim of future studies.
A statistical analysis of the obtained results facilitated the formulation of relationships between the mechanical properties and the content of alkaline activator components. Figure 4 and Figure 5 depict 3D surfaces and their projections onto a 2D plane, described by Equations (5) and (6):
Density = 6514.2047 − 540.9653x − 625.1464y + 13.7518x2 + 2.9337xy + 87.5817y2;
Strength = 19.9396 − 1.9111x − 0.5897y + 0.0553x2 − 0.0972xy + 0.4365y2.
where x—sodium silicate, wt.%; y—sodium hydroxide, wt.%.
The coefficients of determination (R2) for these dependencies stand at 0.8019 and 0.8080, respectively. This signifies that 80.19% and 80.80% of the data points align with the constructed relationships, which proves the significance of the developed model for predicting the properties of porous geopolymers.
Based on the data presented in Figure 4 and Figure 5, it is evident that an increase in the sodium hydroxide content results in a decrease in both the density and strength, while an increase in the sodium silicate content leads to higher values of the density and strength. Thus, a specific sodium silicate and hydroxide ratio that can lower the density while simultaneously increasing the strength should be identified. The modeling results pinpointed the composition of S19N3 as optimal, as the further strengthening of the sample leads to a substantial density increase, which adversely impacts its thermal insulation properties.
The structure of the obtained foamed geopolymer materials primarily consists of gas-filled pores separated by thin walls of geopolymer material. Consequently, the microstructure is characterized by the geopolymer composition of the pore walls, whereas the macrostructure, and subsequently, the material’s properties, are defined by the porous structure. It is well established that the type and quantity of pores significantly influence the mechanical properties, particularly the strength. Materials with identical densities and porosity values but distinct porous structures can exhibit strength values that vary by several times. A similar microstructure (the structure of pore walls) has a lesser impact on strength compared to the macrostructure (pore size and distribution). Thus, the uniformity of the pore distribution in porous materials holds significant importance, as it directly influences the material’s performance properties. For samples exhibiting a density below 350 kg/m3 (S21N3, S21N4, and S19N3), an investigation of the pore size distribution was conducted (Figure 6).
Figure 6 illustrates the pore size distribution histogram for samples S21N3, S21N4, and S19N3. An analysis of the figure reveals that the pore size distributions in samples S21N3 and S21N4 are uneven, displaying pores of both small and large sizes. In contrast, sample S19N3 exhibits a more uniform pore size distribution, with the majority (approximately 50%) in the range of 1.4–2 mm.
Hence, the optimal composition to synthesize foamed geopolymers with superior physical and mechanical properties comprises the following components, in wt.%: ASW—76; sodium silicate—19; sodium hydroxide—3; aluminum powder—2; water (over 100)—6.

3.2. Phase Composition and Microstructure

For the X-ray diffraction analysis, the following samples were selected: the initial ASW, sample S21N0 (without sodium hydroxide), sample S21N3 (containing the optimal amount of sodium hydroxide), and sample S19N3 (containing the optimal amounts of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate). An X-ray phase analysis was conducted to investigate the crystalline peaks, as depicted in Figure 7.
The obtained results reveal remarkable similarities in the X-ray diffraction patterns of all samples. Consequently, the variations in the activator’s quantity do not seem to influence the formation of distinct phases. The X-ray patterns consistently exhibit a “halo” in the 19–35° (2θ) range, signifying the presence of an amorphous phase. Furthermore, all of the investigated samples share a common crystalline phase, primarily high quartz (SiO2), mullite (3Al2O3 2SiO2), and hematite (Fe2O3), which is consistent with other studies [62,63,64].
The semi-quantitative X-ray phase analysis indicates that the compositions are as follows: ASW comprises 62.78% amorphous structure and 27.22% crystalline, S21N0 comprises 70.22% amorphous structure and 29.78% crystalline, S21N3 comprises 71.36% amorphous structure and 28.64% crystalline, and S19N3 comprises 71.06% amorphous structure and 28.94% crystalline. This proves that a significant proportion of the amorphous phase binds particles of the crystalline phase, thereby positively influencing the final technical and operational properties of the geopolymers. Additionally, the presence of uniformly dispersed microcrystals contributes to the enhanced compressive strength of the material.
The microstructure of the synthesized geopolymer materials, observed at magnifications of 50× and 1000×, along with the corresponding EDS spectra, is shown in Figure 8.
It can be seen that all three materials consist of spherical particles—hollow aluminosilicate microspheres derived from the fly ash component of ASW. Additionally, particles with irregular, acute-angled shapes are present, attributed to the slag component of ASW. Notably, sample S21N0 exhibits larger particles due to the absence of alkali in its composition, preventing the dissolution of particles during the geopolymerization process. In comparison, sample S21N3 also contains larger particles compared to S19N3, a consequence of the higher concentration of sodium silicate, which accelerates the geopolymerization reaction, limiting particle dissolution, as observed in S19N3.
The elemental compositions of the studied compositions are presented in Table 5.
The main elements in all three materials are Na, Al, Si, and O. Their contents are almost the same in all of the samples. There is only a difference in the sodium. A lower amount of sodium in the S21N0 sample is due to the fact that the composition of the raw mixture does not include sodium hydroxide.

3.3. Mechanism of Porous Geopolymers Formation

The results obtained in this study allows for the mechanism of porous geopolymer formation to be described (Figure 9).
The geopolymerization process comprises several distinct stages, each critical for the development of the desired porous structure. In the initial phase, ASW particles are combined with sodium silicate and a sodium hydroxide solution. Here, sodium hydroxide undergoes dissociation in the solution with Na+ and OH− ion formation. The second stage initiates the dissolution of ASW particles under the influence of the alkali. Molecular bonds within the aluminosilicate structure weaken due to the diminishing forces of the intermolecular attraction. Simultaneously, aluminum particles are introduced into the mixture. As the process advances to the third stage, further ASW dissolution takes place, along with the continuous geopolymerization of the dissolved particles. Aluminum powder also reacts with the OH− ions, generating hydrogen gas and initiating the initial pore formation. These pores develop independently, with relatively low probabilities of contact, expansion, or coalescence. At the final stage, the geopolymer mass begins to harden, with the pores increasing in size until the mixture begins to collapse. After this point, new pores cease to form. Concurrently, the geopolymerization reaction progresses to form a continuous three-dimensional structure. At this stage, there is a high likelihood of unreacted ASW particles remaining within the material due to their excess compared to the alkaline activator. Sodium silicate binds these unreacted particles into the final geopolymer structure.
Hence, insufficient sodium hydroxide in the mixture results in numerous unreacted ASW particles that cannot integrate into the geopolymer structure. Furthermore, the reaction of aluminum powder with alkali prevent the formation of a uniform porous structure. Conversely, an excess of sodium hydroxide leads to excessive hydrogen production and pore formation. Large pores emerge during the third stage and further expand and merge during the fourth stage, resulting in an uneven porous geopolymer with irregularly shaped pores. Insufficient sodium silicate in the mixture results in unbound ASW particles within the geopolymer structure, making the material brittle and unsuitable for use. Conversely, an excessive sodium silicate presence in the mixture primarily occupies space within the geopolymer binder, with the ASW particles acting as fillers. Additionally, an overly liquid mixture reduces the geopolymer foam’s stability.
Consequently, both components of the activating solution play vital roles in the formation of the desired porous structure. Achieving an optimal porous structure necessitates an appropriate quantity of sodium silicate to securely “bind” unreacted ASW particles without over-diluting the suspension or causing foam collapse. Simultaneously, the amount of NaOH should facilitate the generation of the required ASW particle interaction products, avoiding excessive foaming due to the reaction with the aluminum powder.

3.4. Evaluation of the Developed Mechanism Applicability for ASW of Other TPP

To validate the proposed mechanism of the porous geopolymer formation, the influence of activating solution components on porous geopolymer formation was conducted by using ASW sourced from the Severodvinsk CHPP-1 thermal power plant, situated in a distinct region of Russia, and by employing substantially different coal sources. Figure 10 shows the internal structures of the obtained geopolymer materials, and Table 6 shows their properties.
Figure 10 illustrates the critical impact of varying the sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate contents on the properties of the samples. Sample S.S19N1, characterized by an insufficient amount of sodium hydroxide, exhibits a dense, monolithic structure that lacks thermal insulation properties. This results in unreacted ASW particles that fail to integrate into a porous geopolymer framework. Conversely, when there is an excess of sodium hydroxide (S.S19N5), excessive foaming occurs, leading to an uneven pore structure with pores of different sizes. This sample also displays a reduced compressive strength of 0.33 MPa at a density of 349 kg/m3.
In the case of insufficient sodium silicate (sample S.S15N3), macropores of significant diameters are heterogeneously distributed due to the failure of the ASW particles to bind with the waterglass. This causes the pores to merge into larger ones, resulting in a significant reduction in the material properties, with a density of 406 kg/m3 and a compressive strength of 0.62 MPa. On the other hand, excessive sodium silicate (sample S.S25N3) leads to an extensively porous structure. The geopolymer binder occupies a substantial portion of space, and the ASW particles primarily serve as fillers. This sample exhibits a density of 789 kg/m3 and a compressive strength of 1.88 MPa.
Sample S.S19N3, containing 3 wt.% of sodium hydroxide and 19 wt.% of sodium silicate, demonstrates the most uniform porous structure, with a medium density of 366 kg/m3 and a compressive strength of 0.58 MPa. Thus, the proposed mechanism (Figure 9) effectively explains the process of porous geopolymer formation and the influence of activating mixture components, regardless of the ASW type used, and it works for a wide range of acidic ASW, regardless of the source of their formation. The use of this mechanism will allow for the optimization of the development of geopolymer compositions when using new types of waste and will expand waste utilization in the production of versatile construction materials.

4. Conclusions

Alkaline activator components—sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate—play critical roles in the formation of the geopolymer material structure. This study discusses their specific influences on the geopolymerization of ash and slag waste. The distinct roles of each activation mixture component in the structure formation of porous geopolymers are emphasized. Sodium hydroxide plays a critical role in initiating the dissolution of aluminosilicate particles, catalyzing the activation of waste materials and contributing to the formation of a porous structure through the redox reaction with aluminum. Sodium silicate not only accelerates geopolymerization by enhancing the dissolution rate of waste particles, but also binds unreacted waste materials, thereby influencing the final properties of the geopolymers. The balance between these components is vital in achieving the desired structure and properties of porous geopolymers, as demonstrated in this study. The optimal composition for synthesizing porous geopolymers is identified as 3 wt.% of sodium hydroxide and 19 wt.% of sodium silicate. This composition produces materials with favorable density–strength relationships and high thermal insulation properties.
Then, a mechanism that governs the intricate stages of geopolymerization was developed. This mechanism provides a clear framework for understanding how activating solution components interact with waste materials and foaming agents during the formation of porous geopolymers. It accommodates variations in the sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate contents, offering a comprehensive view of their impacts on material properties. The applicability of the developed geopolymerization mechanism was validated through an independent investigation using ASW sourced from Severodvinsk CHPP-1. This expanded study, employing significantly different waste materials and coal sources, confirmed the mechanism’s efficacy in predicting and controlling the formation of porous geopolymers. These findings hold promise for the practical application of geopolymer technology in sustainable construction practices, enabling the efficient utilization of diverse waste materials, thereby contributing to environmental preservation and economic sustainability.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.A.Y. and B.M.G.; methodology, V.A.S.; formal analysis, V.M.K.; investigation, L.V.K.; data curation A.I.I.; writing—original draft preparation, A.I.I. and V.M.K.; writing—review and editing, E.A.Y. and B.M.G.; visualization, A.V.R.; supervision, B.M.G.; funding acquisition, E.A.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was financially supported by a grant from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (Agreement No. 075-15-2022-1111; “Carbon-neutral technologies for recycling large-tonnage fuel energy waste with the production of functional geopolymer materials”). The evaluation of the developed mechanism using ASW from Severodvinsk CHPP-1 (Section 3.4) was funded by the Russian Science Foundation (Grant No. 21-19-00203; “Efficient temperature-solidificable eco-geopolymers for road construction in the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation based on waste from the local thermal power plants solid fuel combustion”).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data presented in this study are included in the published article.

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank A.N. Yatsenko (the Collective Use Center “Nanotechnologies”, Platov South-Russian State Polytechnic University (NPI)) for assisting with the X-ray diffraction and analysis of the microstructures.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Putilova, I.V. Current State of the Coal Ash Handling Problem in Russia and Abroad, Aspects of the Coal Ash Applications in Hydrogen Economy. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023, 48, 31040–31048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Chukaeva, M.A.; Matveeva, V.A.; Sverchkov, I.P. Complex Processing of High-Carbon Ash and Slag Waste. J. Min. Inst. 2022, 253, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ryabov, Y.V.; Delitsyn, L.M.; Ezhova, N.N.; Sudareva, S.V. Methods for Beneficiation of Ash and Slag Waste from Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plants and Ways for Their Commercial Use (a Review). Therm. Eng. 2019, 66, 149–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yatsenko, E.A.; Goltsman, B.M.; Trofimov, S.V.; Novikov, Y.V.; Smoliy, V.A.; Ryabova, A.V.; Klimova, L.V. Influence of Various Coal Energy Wastes and Foaming Agents on Foamed Geopolymer Materials’ Synthesis. Materials 2023, 16, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Yatsenko, E.A.; Goltsman, B.M.; Novikov, Y.V.; Kurdashov, V.M.; Klimova, L.V. Study into the Possibilities of Synthesis of Foamed Geopolymer Materials Based on Ash and Slag Waste from Thermal Power Plants of the Russian Federation’s Arctic Zone. Glas. Phys. Chem. 2022, 48, 429–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cherkasova, T.G.; Cherkasova, E.V.; Tikhomirova, A.V.; Bobrovnikova, A.A.; Nevedrov, A.V.; Papin, A.V. Coal Waste as a Raw Material for Obtaining Rare and Trace Elements. Bull. Kuzbass State Technol. Univ. 2016, 185, 185–188. [Google Scholar]
  7. Dosmukhamedov, N.K.; Zholdasbay, E.E. Technology of Ash and Slag Waste Processing by Chloridizing Roasting. Metallurgist 2022, 66, 180–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Delitsyn, L.; Popel, O.; Kulumbegov, R.; Sulman, M.; Petropavlovskii, K. Main Ways of Disposal of Aluminosilicate Ash of Coal-Power Plants and Environmental Consequences. AIP Conf. Proc. 2023, 2526, 040041. [Google Scholar]
  9. Iatsyshyn, A.; Artemchuk, V.; Zaporozhets, A.; Popov, O.; Kovach, V. Mathematical Approaches for Determining the Level of Impact of Ash-Slag Dumps of Energy Facilities on the Environment. In Systems, Decision and Control in Energy I; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cherkasova, T.G.; Cherkasova, E.V.; Tikhomirova, A.V.; Gilyazidinova, N.V.; Klyuev, R.V.; Martyushev, N.V.; Karlina, A.I.; Skiba, V.Y. Study of Matrix and Rare Elements in Ash and Slag Waste of a Thermal Power Plant Concerning the Possibility of Their Extraction. Metallurgist 2022, 65, 1324–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lyapin, A.A.; Parinov, I.A.; Buravchuk, N.I.; Cherpakov, A.V.; Shilyaeva, O.V.; Guryanova, O.V. Improving Road Pavement Characteristics; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 10, pp. 973–978. [Google Scholar]
  12. Choudhary, J.; Kumar, B.; Gupta, A. Utilization of Solid Waste Materials as Alternative Fillers in Asphalt Mixes: A Review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 234, 117271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Abdila, S.R.; Abdullah, M.M.A.B.; Ahmad, R.; Burduhos Nergis, D.D.; Rahim, S.Z.A.; Omar, M.F.; Sandu, A.V.; Vizureanu, P. Syafwandi Potential of Soil Stabilization Using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) and Fly Ash via Geopolymerization Method: A Review. Materials 2022, 15, 375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yatsenko, E.A.; Goltsman, B.M.; Trofimov, S.V.; Kurdashov, V.M.; Novikov, Y.V.; Smoliy, V.A.; Ryabova, A.V.; Klimova, L.V. Improving the Properties of Porous Geopolymers Based on TPP Ash and Slag Waste by Adjusting Their Chemical Composition. Materials 2022, 15, 2587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Akhmedov, I.; Khamidov, A.; Shavkat, Y.; Jalalov, Z.; Umarov, I.; Kazadayev, A. Research of Ash-Slag Mixtures for Production of Construction Materials. Spectr. J. Innov. Reforms Dev. 2022, 10, 85–91. [Google Scholar]
  16. Karim, M.R.; Zain, M.F.M.; Jamil, M.; Lai, F.C.; Islam, M.N. Use of Wastes in Construction Industries as an Energy Saving Approach. Energy Procedia 2011, 12, 915–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. He, H.; Dong, Z.; Peng, Q.; Wang, X.; Fan, C.; Zhang, X. Impacts of Coal Fly Ash on Plant Growth and Accumulation of Essential Nutrients and Trace Elements by Alfalfa (Medicago Sativa) Grown in a Loessial Soil. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 197, 428–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tripathi, R.C.; Masto, R.E.; Ram, L.C. Bulk Use of Pond Ash for Cultivation of Wheat—Maize—Eggplant Crops in Sequence on a Fallow Land. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2009, 54, 134–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Menshov, P.V.; Khlupin, Y.V.; Nalesnik, O.I.; Makarovskikh, A.V. Ash and Slag Waste as a Secondary Raw Material. Procedia Chem. 2014, 10, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mounanga, P.; Khokhar, M.I.A.; El Hachem, R.; Loukili, A. Improvement of the Early-Age Reactivity of Fly Ash and Blast Furnace Slag Cementitious Systems Using Limestone Filler. Mater. Struct. 2011, 44, 437–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Palomo, A.; Maltseva, O.; Garcia-Lodeiro, I.; Fernández-Jiménez, A. Portland Versus Alkaline Cement: Continuity or Clean Break: “A Key Decision for Global Sustainability”. Front. Chem. 2021, 9, 705475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Pacheco-Torgal, F.; Labrincha, J.; Leonelli, C.; Palomo, A.; Chindaprasit, P. Handbook of Alkali-Activated Cements, Mortars and Concretes; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  23. Yatsenko, E.A.; Ryabova, A.V.; Vil’bitskaya, N.A.; Kurdashov, V.M.; Trofimov, S.V.; Golovko, D.A. Eco-Geopolymers Based on CHP Plant Ash-Slag Waste: Promising Materials for Road Construction in the Arctic Zone. Glas. Ceram. 2022, 78, 490–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ziegler, D.; Formia, A.; Tulliani, J.-M.; Palmero, P. Environmentally-Friendly Dense and Porous Geopolymers Using Fly Ash and Rice Husk Ash as Raw Materials. Materials 2016, 9, 466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hao, Y.; Yang, G.; Liang, K. Development of Fly Ash and Slag Based High-Strength Alkali-Activated Foam Concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2022, 128, 104447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang, Z.; Provis, J.L.; Reid, A.; Wang, H. Geopolymer Foam Concrete: An Emerging Material for Sustainable Construction. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 56, 113–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bai, C.; Colombo, P. Processing, Properties and Applications of Highly Porous Geopolymers: A Review. Ceram. Int. 2018, 44, 16103–16118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Moghadam, M.J.; Ajalloeian, R.; Hajiannia, A. Preparation and Application of Alkali-Activated Materials Based on Waste Glass and Coal Gangue: A Review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 221, 84–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhao, J.; Tong, L.; Li, B.; Chen, T.; Wang, C.; Yang, G.; Zheng, Y. Eco-Friendly Geopolymer Materials: A Review of Performance Improvement, Potential Application and Sustainability Assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 307, 127085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kozub, B.; Bazan, P.; Gailitis, R.; Korniejenko, K.; Mierzwiński, D. Foamed Geopolymer Composites with the Addition of Glass Wool Waste. Materials 2021, 14, 4978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Raza, S.; Orooji, Y.; Ghasali, E.; Hayat, A.; Karimi-Maleh, H.; Lin, H. Engineering Approaches for CO2 Converting to Biomass Coupled with Nanobiomaterials as Biomediated towards Circular Bioeconomy. J. CO2 Util. 2023, 67, 102295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cho, Y.-K.; Yoo, S.-W.; Jung, S.-H.; Lee, K.-M.; Kwon, S.-J. Effect of Na2O Content, SiO2/Na2O Molar Ratio, and Curing Conditions on the Compressive Strength of FA-Based Geopolymer. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 145, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Liew, Y.-M.; Heah, C.-Y.; Kamarudin, H. Others Structure and Properties of Clay-Based Geopolymer Cements: A Review. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2016, 83, 595–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gharzouni, A.; Joussein, E.; Samet, B.; Baklouti, S.; Rossignol, S. Effect of the Reactivity of Alkaline Solution and Metakaolin on Geopolymer Formation. J. Non. Cryst. Solids 2015, 410, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hardjito, D.; Wallah, S.E.; Sumajouw, D.M.J.; Rangan, B.V. Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete. Aust. J. Struct. Eng. 2005, 6, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Henon, J.; Alzina, A.; Absi, J.; Smith, D.S.; Rossignol, S. Porosity Control of Cold Consolidated Geomaterial Foam: Temperature Effect. Ceram. Int. 2012, 38, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Moutaoukil, S.; Alehyen, S.; Sobrados, I.; Fadil, M.; Taibi, M. Effects of Temperature, Time and Alkaline Solution Content on the Mechanical Properties of Class C Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Using Taguchi Method. Moroc. J. Chem. 2023, 11, 11. [Google Scholar]
  38. Paija, N.; Kolay, P.K.; Mohanty, M.; Kumar, S. Ground Bottom Ash Application for Conventional Mortar and Geopolymer Paste. J. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste 2020, 24, 4019025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mohamed, O.; Ahmed, E.; Najm, O.; Al-Aribe, K.; Hijah, E. Water Absorption Characteristics and Rate of Strength Development of Mortar with Slag-Based Alkali-Activated Binder and 25% Fly Ash Replacement. Mater. Today Proc. 2023, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mohamed, O.A.; Najm, O.; Ahmed, E. Alkali-Activated Slag & Fly Ash as Sustainable Alternatives to OPC: Sorptivity and Strength Development Characteristics of Mortar. Clean. Mater. 2023, 8, 100188. [Google Scholar]
  41. Zhang, Z.; Provis, J.L.; Reid, A.; Wang, H. Fly Ash-Based Geopolymers: The Relationship between Composition, Pore Structure and Efflorescence. Cem. Concr. Res. 2014, 64, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rajamma, R.; Labrincha, J.A.; Ferreira, V.M. Alkali Activation of Biomass Fly Ash—Metakaolin Blends. Fuel 2012, 98, 265–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sharmila, S.; Natarajan, N.; Dineshkumar, S. Analysis of Microstructural Properties and Durability Characteristics of Geopolymer Mortar. Mater. Today Proc. 2023, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Novais, R.M.; Ascensão, G.; Buruberri, L.H.; Senff, L.; Labrincha, J.A. Influence of Blowing Agent on the Fresh-and Hardened-State Properties of Lightweight Geopolymers. Mater. Des. 2016, 108, 551–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Do\ugan-Sa\uglamtimur, N.; Öznur, H.Ö.; Bilgil, A.; Vural, T.; Süzgeç, E. The Effect of Alkali Activation Solutions with Different Water Glass/NaOH Solution Ratios on Geopolymer Composite Materials. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP: London, UK, 2019; Volume 660, p. 12003. [Google Scholar]
  46. Görhan, G.; Kürklü, G. The Influence of the NaOH Solution on the Properties of the Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Mortar Cured at Different Temperatures. Compos. Part B Eng. 2014, 58, 371–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hajimohammadi, A.; Ngo, T.; Mendis, P.; Sanjayan, J. Regulating the Chemical Foaming Reaction to Control the Porosity of Geopolymer Foams. Mater. Des. 2017, 120, 255–265. [Google Scholar]
  48. Rao, P.R.; Momayez, M.; Runge, K.A.; Muralidharan, K. Recent Developments in Thermally Insulating Materials Based on Geopolymers—A Review Article. Min. Metall. Explor. 2020, 37, 995–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Xu, H.; van Deventer, J.S.J. The Effect of Alkali Metals on the Formation of Geopolymeric Gels from Alkali-Feldspars. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2003, 216, 27–44. [Google Scholar]
  50. Berardi, U.; Doan, H.; Landi, E. Salient Parameters Affecting the Performance of Foamed Geopolymers as Sustainable Insulating Materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 313, 125400. [Google Scholar]
  51. Al Bakri Abdullah, M.M.; Kamarudin, H.; Abdulkareem, O.A.K.A.; Ghazali, C.M.R.; Rafiza, A.R.; Norazian, M.N. Optimization of Alkaline Activator/Fly Ash Ratio on the Compressive Strength of Manufacturing Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2011, 110–116, 734–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hardjito, D.; Wallah, S.E. Study on Engineering Properties of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete. J. Australas. Ceram. Soc. 2002, 38, 44–47. [Google Scholar]
  53. Patankar, S.V.; Ghugal, Y.M.; Jamkar, S.S. Effect of Concentration of Sodium Hydroxide and Degree of Heat Curing on Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Mortar. Indian J. Mater. Sci. 2014, 2014, 938789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ma, Y.; Hu, J.; Ye, G. The Pore Structure and Permeability of Alkali Activated Fly Ash. Fuel 2013, 104, 771–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kamseu, E.; Nait-Ali, B.; Bignozzi, M.C.; Leonelli, C.; Rossignol, S.; Smith, D.S. Bulk Composition and Microstructure Dependence of Effective Thermal Conductivity of Porous Inorganic Polymer Cements. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2012, 32, 1593–1603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yu, H.; Xu, M.; Chen, C.; He, Y.; Cui, X. A Review on the Porous Geopolymer Preparation for Structural and Functional Materials Applications. Int. J. Appl. Ceram. Technol. 2022, 19, 1793–1813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Liu, X.; Hu, C.; Chu, L. Microstructure, Compressive Strength and Sound Insulation Property of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymeric Foams with Silica Fume as Foaming Agent. Materials 2020, 13, 3215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Jaya, N.A.; Yun-Ming, L.; Cheng-Yong, H.; Abdullah, M.M.A.B.; Hussin, K. Correlation between Pore Structure, Compressive Strength and Thermal Conductivity of Porous Metakaolin Geopolymer. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 247, 118641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gu, G.; Xu, F.; Ruan, S.; Huang, X.; Zhu, J.; Peng, C. Influence of Precast Foam on the Pore Structure and Properties of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Foams. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 256, 119410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Korniejenko, K.; Pławecka, K.; Bazan, P.; Figiela, B.; Kozub, B.; Mróz, K.; Łach, M. Green Building Materials for Circular Economy-Geopolymer Foams. Proc. Eng. Technol. Innov. 2023, 25, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Huang, Y.; Gong, L.; Shi, L.; Cao, W.; Pan, Y.; Cheng, X. Experimental Investigation on the Influencing Factors of Preparing Porous Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer for Insulation Material. Energy Build. 2018, 168, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Moni, S.M.F.K.; Ikeora, O.; Pritzel, C.; Görtz, B.; Trettin, R. Preparation and Properties of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete with Alkaline Waste Water Obtained from Foundry Sand Regeneration Process. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2020, 22, 1434–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Al Bakri Abdullah, M.M.; Hussin, K.; Bnhussain, M.; Ismail, K.N.; Yahya, Z.; Razak, R.A. Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Lightweight Concrete Using Foaming Agent. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13, 7186–7198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Korniejenko, K.; Kejzlar, P.; Louda, P. The Influence of the Material Structure on the Mechanical Properties of Geopolymer Composites Reinforced with Short Fibers Obtained with Additive Technologies. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 16 07535 g002
Figure 2. Scheme for geopolymer material production.
Figure 2. Scheme for geopolymer material production.
Energies 16 07535 g002
Energies 16 07535 g003
Figure 3. The structures of the obtained geopolymer materials with different contents of sodium hydroxide.
Figure 3. The structures of the obtained geopolymer materials with different contents of sodium hydroxide.
Energies 16 07535 g003
Energies 16 07535 g004
Figure 4. Dependence of density on the contents of sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide: (a) 3D surface; (b) 2D map of level lines.
Figure 4. Dependence of density on the contents of sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide: (a) 3D surface; (b) 2D map of level lines.
Energies 16 07535 g004
Energies 16 07535 g005
Figure 5. Dependence of compressive strength on the contents of sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide: (a) 3D surface; (b) 2D map of level lines.
Figure 5. Dependence of compressive strength on the contents of sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide: (a) 3D surface; (b) 2D map of level lines.
Energies 16 07535 g005
Energies 16 07535 g006
Figure 6. Pore size distribution histogram for samples S21N3, S21N4, and S19N3.
Figure 6. Pore size distribution histogram for samples S21N3, S21N4, and S19N3.
Energies 16 07535 g006
Energies 16 07535 g007
Figure 7. X-ray phase analysis of ASW and synthesized geopolymer materials: □—high quartz (SiO2); △—mullite (3Al2O3ꞏ2SiO2); 〇—hematite (Fe2O3).
Figure 7. X-ray phase analysis of ASW and synthesized geopolymer materials: □—high quartz (SiO2); △—mullite (3Al2O3ꞏ2SiO2); 〇—hematite (Fe2O3).
Energies 16 07535 g007
Energies 16 07535 g008
Figure 8. Microstructure and EDS spectra of geopolymer materials.
Figure 8. Microstructure and EDS spectra of geopolymer materials.
Energies 16 07535 g008
Energies 16 07535 g009
Figure 9. Mechanism of porous geopolymers formation.
Figure 9. Mechanism of porous geopolymers formation.
Energies 16 07535 g009
Energies 16 07535 g010
Figure 10. Internal structures of the resulting geopolymer materials based on ASW from Severodvinsk CHPP-1.
Figure 10. Internal structures of the resulting geopolymer materials based on ASW from Severodvinsk CHPP-1.
Energies 16 07535 g010
Table 1. Ratios of sodium silicate and hydroxide in the alkaline activator solution.
Table 1. Ratios of sodium silicate and hydroxide in the alkaline activator solution.
MaterialNaOH (Dry), wt.%Na2SiO3 (Waterglass), wt.%Na2SiO3/NaOH RatioRef.
Fly ash2.5202.5[37]
Fly ashNot givenNot given1.5–3.0[38]
Slag + fly ashNot givenNot given1.5–2.5[39]
Slag + fly ashNot givenNot given1.5–2.5[40]
Fly ash3.5171.5[41]
Metakaolin + fly ash3–711–260.5–2.5[42]
Slag + fly ashNot givenNot given2.5[43]
Metakaolin + fly ash4–5372.3[44]
Fly ash + sand1.5–4.58–271.0–3.0[45]
Fly ash + sand0.5–212.5–13.52.0[46]
Table 2. Chemical compositions of ASW, wt.%.
Table 2. Chemical compositions of ASW, wt.%.
ContentNa2OK2OCaOMgOMnOAl2O3Fe2O3SiO2TiO2P2O5SO3LOI
ASW (Novocherkassk SDPP)0.93.03.12.10.118.810.351.20.80.10.39.3
ASW (Severodvinsk CHPP-1)3.62.32.12.80.117.96.861.60.80.20.32.3
Table 3. Component compositions of the raw mixtures, wt.%.
Table 3. Component compositions of the raw mixtures, wt.%.
CompositionASWSodium
Silicate		Sodium
Hydroxide		Aluminum PowderWater, over 100
S21N07721020
S21N17621122
S21N27521224
S21N37421326
S21N47321428
S17N37817326
S19N37619326
S23N37223326
S25N37025326
S.S19N37619326
S.S19N17819126
S.S19N57419526
S.S15N38015326
S.S25N37025326
Table 4. Properties of the resulting geopolymer materials.
Table 4. Properties of the resulting geopolymer materials.
CompositionDensity, kg/m3Compressive Strength, MPaPorosity, %Thermal Conductivity, W/(m·K)
S21N01202 ± 114.48 ± 0.1948.4 ± 0.50.272 ± 0.003
S21N1786 ± 51.47 ± 0.0766.3 ± 0.20.176 ± 0.001
S21N2373 ± 80.59 ± 0.0784.0 ± 0.40.083 ± 0.002
S21N3349 ± 70.57 ± 0.0284.9 ± 0.30.079 ± 0.002
S21N4319 ± 60.37 ± 0.0286.3 ± 0.20.072 ± 0.001
S17N3389 ± 80.55 ± 0.0383.3 ± 0.40.086 ± 0.002
S19N3335 ± 60.55 ± 0.0385.6 ± 0.20.075 ± 0.001
S23N3512 ± 100.70 ± 0.0478.0 ± 0.40.113 ± 0.002
S25N3702 ± 161.67 ± 0.0769.9 ± 0.70.156 ± 0.004
Table 5. Elemental compositions of geopolymer materials (in atomic %).
Table 5. Elemental compositions of geopolymer materials (in atomic %).
ElementS21N0S21N3S19N3
O65.562.262.5
Na6.711.211.3
K1.21.10.9
Ca1.21.21.2
Mg0.90.90.9
Al6.15.65.8
Si15.914.714.9
Ti0.20.30.2
Fe2.32.82.3
Table 6. Properties of the resulting geopolymer materials based on ASW from Severodvinsk CHPP-1.
Table 6. Properties of the resulting geopolymer materials based on ASW from Severodvinsk CHPP-1.
CompositionDensity, kg/m3Compressive Strength, MPaPorosity, %Thermal Conductivity, W/(m·K)
S.S19N3366 ± 110.58 ± 0.0382.0 ± 0.50.081 ± 0.001
S.S19N1841 ± 121.41 ± 0.0658.7 ± 0.60.185 ± 0.002
S.S19N5349 ± 60.33 ± 0.0282.8 ± 0.30.079 ± 0.002
S.S15N3406 ± 80.62 ± 0.0280.0 ± 0.40.089 ± 0.001
S.S25N3789 ± 191.88 ± 0.0661.2 ± 0.90.161 ± 0.004
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yatsenko, E.A.; Goltsman, B.M.; Izvarin, A.I.; Kurdashov, V.M.; Smoliy, V.A.; Ryabova, A.V.; Klimova, L.V. Recycling Ash and Slag Waste from Thermal Power Plants to Produce Foamed Geopolymers. Energies 2023, 16, 7535. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16227535

AMA Style

Yatsenko EA, Goltsman BM, Izvarin AI, Kurdashov VM, Smoliy VA, Ryabova AV, Klimova LV. Recycling Ash and Slag Waste from Thermal Power Plants to Produce Foamed Geopolymers. Energies. 2023; 16(22):7535. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16227535

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yatsenko, Elena A., Boris M. Goltsman, Andrey I. Izvarin, Viktor M. Kurdashov, Victoria A. Smoliy, Anna V. Ryabova, and Lyudmila V. Klimova. 2023. "Recycling Ash and Slag Waste from Thermal Power Plants to Produce Foamed Geopolymers" Energies 16, no. 22: 7535. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16227535

APA Style

Yatsenko, E. A., Goltsman, B. M., Izvarin, A. I., Kurdashov, V. M., Smoliy, V. A., Ryabova, A. V., & Klimova, L. V. (2023). Recycling Ash and Slag Waste from Thermal Power Plants to Produce Foamed Geopolymers. Energies, 16(22), 7535. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16227535

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop