Next Article in Journal
Correlation between Different Methods to Diagnose Foot Posture Condition
Previous Article in Journal
Medical Device Regulation Efforts for mHealth Apps during the COVID-19 Pandemic—An Experience Report of Corona Check and Corona Health
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
J
Volume 4
Issue 3
10.3390/j4030018
J-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

Reactivity of Ground Coal Bottom Ash to Be Used in Portland Cement

by
Esperanza Menéndez
1,
Cristina Argiz
2 and
Miguel Ángel Sanjuán
3,*
1
The Eduardo Torroja Institute for Construction Science (Spanish National Research Council, CSIC), C/Serrano Galvache, 4, 28033 Madrid, Spain
2
Civil Engineering School, Technical University of Madrid, C/Profesor Aranguren, 3, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040 Madrid, Spain
3
Spanish Institute of Cement and its Applications (IECA), C/José Abascal, 53, 28003 Madrid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J 2021, 4(3), 223-232; https://doi.org/10.3390/j4030018
Submission received: 3 June 2021 / Revised: 16 June 2021 / Accepted: 17 June 2021 / Published: 23 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Chemistry & Material Sciences)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Ground coal bottom ash is considered a novel material when used in common cement production as a blended cement. This new application must be evaluated by means of the study of its pozzolanic properties. Coal bottom ash, in some countries, is being used as a replacement for natural sand, but in some others, it is disposed of in a landfill, leading thus to environmental problems. The pozzolanic properties of ground coal bottom ash and coal fly ash cements were investigated in order to assess their pozzolanic performance. Proportions of coal fly ash and ground coal bottom ash in the mixes were 100:0, 90:10, 80:20, 50:50, 0:100. Next, multicomponent cements were formulated using 10%, 25% or 35% of ashes. In general, the pozzolanic performance of the ground coal bottom ash is quite similar to that of the coal fly ash. As expected, the pozzolanic reaction of both of them proceeds slowly at early ages, but the reaction rate increases over time. Ground coal bottom ash is a promising novel material with pozzolanic properties which are comparable to that of coal fly ashes. Then, coal bottom ash subjected to an adequate mechanical grinding is suitable to be used to produce common coal-ash cements.

1. Introduction

Carboneras power plant has a power of 1,158,900 kW and currently mainly burns coal from South Africa (90%). This coal presents a low heat value of only 6593 kcal/kg [1] and the ash amount is about 15.75% [2]. A grate boiler was used to burn the pulverized coal. The fly ash/bottom ash ratio was about 6. Coal fly ash is normally used in cement production in Europe. In addition, it is utilized as a supplementary cementitious material (SCM) for concrete not only in America but also in Europe. Coal bottom ash is the coarser ash that falls down and is collected to be handled and disposed of in a landfill [3].
Coal fly ashes use depends on their chemical characteristics and its properties have already been published in many papers [4]. On the contrary, the potential utilization of coal bottom ashes as cement constituent, which is influenced by the physical composition, i.e., particle size distribution (PSD), has not been well studied yet.
The most common use of coal bottom ash has been to replace natural aggregates due to its coarse, fused, glassy texture and, also, due to its low cost [5,6]. It is used as sand replacement in the production of asphalt concrete and as a base in the construction of roads [7]. The porous nature of the coal bottom ash aggregates is believed to be beneficial for reducing the concrete shrinkage [8]; such reduction is achieved thanks to the internal curing obtained as result of the slow release of water from the saturated porous coal bottom ash [9]. Coal bottom ash has also been investigated to replace calcined diatomite and natural clay in fired-ceramic composites and lightweight heat-resistant concretes, respectively [10]. In addition, coal bottom ash is a potentially promising source of rare earth elements [11]. In some countries, such as India, coal-fired power stations utilize a humid procedure for coal fly ash and coal bottom ash disposal. The first one is collected from the precipitators and the second one is collected from the boilers. These solids are then mixed with water forming a slurry (ponded ash) which is discharged to lagoons. In particular, this mixture is composed by particles with an average size below 75 mm, i.e., about 65% of the total amount of ashes [6]. Therefore, it is not widely used in concrete.
This paper examines the extent to which the ground coal bottom ash (CBA) could be used alone or mixed with the coal fly ash (CFA) produced in the same powerhouse to be potentially valorized as a novel common cement constituent in line with the circular economy principles of resource sharing. Its potential pozzolanic properties will be addressed.
Coal bottom ash is investigated in the present study for its potential pozzolanic properties when used alone or mixed with coal fly ash, both of them produced in the same power station, in order to be potentially valorized for the cement industry in the near future.
The novelty of this research program relies, in particular, on the assessment of ground CBA–CFA mixes to be considered as a novel cement constituent with significant pozzolanic reactivity. We would also like to underline the interest of this investigation of CFA-CBA mixes pozzolanic reactivity which has provided the basis for the potential standardization of new cement types.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Coal bottom ash (CBA) and coal fly ash (CFA) used in this study were provided by Carboneras power station (Latitude: 36°57′54″ N and longitude: 1°53′24″ O), located in Almeria, in the South of Spain (Figure 1). The power station consumes coal from South Africa (90%) and Colombia (10%). The fineness of the ground coal bottom ash and coal fly ash used in the present work were 3463 m2/kg and 3976 m2/kg, respectively, measured as Blaine specific surface. A CEM I 42.5 N cement according to the European standard EN 197-1:2011 [12] was employed to prepare the cement mixtures. The Portland cement was supplied by HOLCIM (ESPAÑA), S.A. Table 1 presents the codes (Greek letters) of the ash mixes (coal bottom and fly ashes).

2.2. Analytical Methodology

The chemical analyses of SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, CaO, MgO, SO3, K2O, Ti2O5, P2O5 were performed by XRF with a Bruker S8 Tigger 4 kW model. Loss on ignition (LOI), insoluble residue and chloride ion were determined according to the European standard EN 196-2:2013 [13] and pozzolanicity according to EN 196-5:2011 [14].

2.3. Pozzolanic Activity Assessment of the Coal Bottom Ash, Coal Fly Ash, Cement and Their Mixes

Pozzolanic activities of coal bottom ash and coal fly ash mixes were assessed by means of chemical and mechanical testing. The mechanical assessment was performed by means of the compressive strength activity index defined in the European standard EN 450-1 [15]. The compressive strength testing procedure is explained in EN 196-1 [16].
Pozzolanic activity was measured in cement paste (water/cement = 0.5), whereas EDS microanalysis was performed in standard mortars (water/cement = 0.5 and cement/sand = 1/3, according to EN 196-1 [16]). One mixture was used for the pozzolanic activity measurements, and three mortars specimens were made for each composition.
The chemical evaluation was carried out following the procedure given by the European standard EN 196-5:2011 [14]. The CaO and OH- concentrations were measured at 1, 3, 7, 14, 28 and 90 days according to EN 196-2 [13]. First at all, pozzolanic activity assessment of coal bottom ash, coal fly ash and cement separately was performed by chemical testing. All of them were immersed in a saturated solution of Ca(OH)2 at 40 °C for 1, 3, 7, 14, 28 and 90 days. Secondly, both coal ashes were mixed with the cement, in a proportion of 75:25 (cement:ash), and with distilled water (water/cement = 0.5). These mixes were kept at 40 °C for 1, 3, 7, 14, 28 and 90 days.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Characterization of the Coal Bottom Ash, Coal Fly Ash and Cement

The chemical compositions of the coal bottom ash, coal fly ash and cement are given in Table 2. Additionally, the cement physical properties are shown in Table 2.
The calcium oxide content of the coal bottom ash is low (5.9%) and similar to that of the coal fly ash (5.0%). With regard to the sum (SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3), it reaches 85.6%. Given that, it is a type F ash according to ASTM C 618-15 [17], as well as the fly ash which reaches 84.4%.
In particular, the silicon and aluminum oxides content ranges from 79.4% (coal bottom ash) to 79.7% (coal fly ash). Figure 2 shows that the highest peaks correspond to these two elements. Accordingly, the coal bottom ash and coal fly ash mixes have similar chemical compositions to that of pozzolanic materials. The loss on ignition (LOI) in coal bottom ash is primarily because of the carbon content. Therefore, the content of carbon is about 1.9%. With regard to the chloride and sulphate ion amounts, both of them are very low (Cl− < 0.001% and 0.13% SO3).
Chloride content is a critical problem for the reuse of coal fly ash as a raw material in cement in some cases. By contrast, it could be suggested that adding coal fly ash to a concrete can significantly reduce the concentration of free chloride ions. According to the European standard EN 450-1 “Fly ash for concrete—Part 1: Definition, specifications and conformity criteria” [15], the content of chloride, expressed as Cl–, shall not be greater than 0.10% by mass. The reasons for this low chloride content in both ashes is the origin of the coal (South Africa, 90%, and Colombia, 10%).
Therefore, a low probability of occurrence of detrimental effects on cement setting, hardening and durability is confirmed. Among the trace elements, higher concentrations of P2O5 and Ti2O5 were detected in coal fly ash than in coal bottom ash. Summing up, it can be stated that the chemical composition of CBA and CFA supplied by the same coal-fired power plant is quite similar.
The physical, mechanical and durability properties of the fly ash‒bottom ash–common Portland cement mixtures were reported elsewhere [3,18,19]. Finally, the spherical and rounded particles of coal fly ash (CFA) and irregularly shaped grains of ground coal bottom ash (CBA) have been observed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analyses of both ashes (Figure 2). In addition, Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy (EDS) was used in conjunction with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to obtain the chemical differences between both ashes. This chemical microanalysis technique showed their chemical similarity. As shown in Table 2, only calcium and iron are slightly higher in CBA than in CFA. According to McCarthy [20], the ferrous phases are found mostly in crystalline form as magnetite (Fe3O4) or hematite (Fe2O3).

3.2. Pozzolanic Activity of Ground Coal Bottom Ash, Coal Fly Ash and Cement Mixes Determined by Chemical Testing

All the raw materials, except the cement CEM I 42.5 N, showed a certain pozzolanic activity (coal bottom ash and coal fly ash), when they were immersed in a saturated solution of Ca(OH)2 at 40 °C for 1, 3, 7, 14, 28 and 90 days (Figure 3). CaO concentration decreased with time up to values of 9 mmol/L after 3 days for the cement as result of the hydrated calcium silicates formation, while the OH- concentration remained stable around 65 mmol/L. Such concentrations are quite close to the curve drawn in Figure 3, but they are still slightly above it.
CaO and OH- concentrations for CFA decreased from 9 mmol/L and 15 mmol/L (1 day) to 3 mmol/L and 10 mmol/L (90 days), respectively. Then, OH− concentration changed very little for coal fly ash, e.g., the OH− concentration was 15 mmol/L at 1 day; whereas at 90 days it is 10 mmol/L. On the other hand, the CaO concentration decreases sharply from 9 mmol/L to 3.6 mmol/L during the same period (Figure 3). Apparently, the pair of points defining the CaO and OH− concentrations for coal fly ash in Figure 3 follows a sharp straight line. By contrast, the CaO and OH− concentration points for ground coal bottom ash did not follow any clear trend.
Surprisingly, ground coal bottom ash showed a faster CaO and OH− consumption with values as low as 1 and 3 mmol/L, respectively (Figure 3). These concentrations stayed largely constant for ground coal bottom ash from 1 to 90 days. This fact is attributed to the greater fineness of the ground coal bottom ash and, therefore, larger specific area. The finer the coal ash is, the more reactive a material it will be. In addition, the spherical shape of the coal fly ash provides a lower reactive performance than the angular shape of the ground coal bottom ash. According to Dembas [21], the fineness of the ground coal ashes and the cement used in the mix has an important influence on the performance of the final cementitious material.
Furthermore, pozzolanicity was determined at 1, 3, 7, 14, 28 and 90 days for all the bottom ash‒fly ash‒cement mixes, as shown in Figure 4. The pozzolanic reaction at 40 °C began at the age of seven days for CEM IV/A (V), i.e., the mix with the largest content of ground coal bottom ash and/or coal fly ash (Figure 4). Thus, the greater increase of ash content showed the higher pozzolanic activity. This fact suggests that the amorphous aluminous and siliceous phases in both ashes are reactive solids providing a pozzolanic activity to both ashes. This suggestion was evaluated by determining the pozzolanic activity as described in EN 196-5:2005 [14], which revealed that Ca(OH)2 consumption, produced by the cement hydration, was performed for all the mixtures.
According to Hanehara et al. [22], the pozzolanic reaction at 20 °C of fly ash cement paste begins after 28 days of curing. As the pozzolanic reaction depends strongly on the temperature, pozzolanicity proceeds sooner at 40 °C. Moreover, they found that the coal fly ash reaction rate decreases when coal fly ash replacement increases.
According to Damidot et al. [23], when the coal fly ash is mixed in proportions above 25%, it provides only a filler effect, which corresponds to the suggested strätlingite formation. This fact also indicates that strätlingite has an insignificant contribution in the compressive strength of the cementitious material. In addition, it is well-known that the increase of coal ashes in the cement decreases the pH of the pore solution due to the Ca(OH)2 consumption by the pozzolanic reaction and alkalis reduction. This process is responsible for the loss of part of both ashes’ reactivity. The alkalinity lowering of the cementitious material is known as self-neutralization [24].
Additionally, pozzolanicity was determined at 1, 3, 7, 14, 28 and 90 days for all the bottom ash‒fly ash‒cement mixes, as shown in Figure 4. The pozzolanic reaction at 40 °C began at the age of seven days for CEM IV/A (V), i.e., the mix with the highest content of ground coal bottom ash and/or coal fly ash (Figure 4). Thus, the greater increase of ash content showed the higher pozzolanic activity. This fact suggests that the amorphous aluminous and siliceous phases in both ashes are reactive solids providing a pozzolanic activity to both ashes. This suggestion was evaluated by determining the pozzolanic activity as described in EN 196-5:2005 [12], which revealed that Ca(OH)2 consumption, produced by the cement hydration, was performed for all the mixtures.

3.3. Pozzolanic Activity of Ground Coal Bottom Ash and Coal Fly Ash Mortars Determined by Means of the Strength Activity Index

In order to compare the pozzolanicity results with the compressive strength activity index for both ashes, cement‒ash mortars were made following the procedure described in EN 450-1 [15], replacing 25% of the mass of the reference cement with the coal fly ash (β) or ground coal bottom ash (Ω). According to Argiz et al. [3], the 28-day compressive strengths obtained in standard mortars were 50.98 MPa (CEM I-α), 40.78 MPa (CEM II/B-(V)-β) and 43.33 MPa (CEM II/B (V) Ω); whereas the 90-day compressive strengths were 55.55 MPa (CEM I-α), 50 MPa (CEM II/B-(V)-β) and 60.55 MPa (CEM II/B (V) Ω). Therefore, the calculated strength activity indexes reached 80% and 85% at 28 days, and 90% and 109% at 90 days, for CFA and ground CBA, respectively. These values are over the upper limit established in EN 450-1 [15] of 75% and 85% for 28 and 90 days, respectively. However, higher strength activity indexes were reported in Reference [25].
A better performance of CFA than ground CBA was expected due to its more spherical shape and smooth texture (Figure 2). On the other hand, ground CBA grains have a significantly angular shape in the aftermath of grinding. Ball-shaped CFA and even surfaces enhance low interparticle friction and a significant mobility. As a result, the higher the content of CFA is, the better the plasticity in the cementitious mixture [26]. Conversely, coal fly ash has a higher content of SO3 and unburned carbon than ground coal bottom ash, which might boost the water requirement of CFA mortars [27,28]. Moreover, when the fineness of the coal fly ash is greater than that of the cement, such water demand might be increased as a result of the surface area rise. This effect could be the responsible for the compressive strength reduction [29,30].
In addition, coal fly ash cannot always control the consistency and workability of the cementitious material. Sometimes, the porosity, roughened surface and uneven form could be the responsible for a higher water demand in CBA and CFA [31]. Particle size distribution (PSD) is nonetheless one factor affecting the compressive strength of the cementitious products. Ash quality, together with its amount in the mix, also affects this parameter. In any case, and with the aim of using CBA effectively, they must be transformed. Given that, the grinding process is a form of improving the CBA reactivity as shown in Figure 4 [31,32,33,34,35].
Felekoğlu et al. studied the effect of coal fly ash grinding on mortar water demand to obtain a certain workability [36]. They suggested some interactions of the water demand and fineness with the compressive strength.
Jaturapitakkul et al. found that CFA particulates of 90–100 µm presented lower reactivity than the finer ones [37]. Hence, this grain size fraction is not recommended to be used in cementitious materials such as mortars and concretes. Several authors have found that enhancement of the reactivity can be achieved by grinding. Therefore, CFA but also CBA fineness will play an important role in the final compressive strength provided by the mortar or concrete [31]. For instance, high fineness classified coal fly ash has been used to make high-strength concrete [35,38]. Similarly, the grinding process applied to coarse CFA, as well as CBA, will enhance the fineness of the ashes. Thus, their pozzolanic reactivity will be promoted leading to being apt to be utilized in blended cement.
Jaturapitakkul et al. proposed that blended cement with 15%, 25%, 35% and 50% of ground CFA (d50 = 3.8 µm) could be used to produce concrete with a high strength, whereas 25% of ground CFA achieves the highest compressive strength [37]. In a similar way, CBA could be ground to a controlled size to optimize its use in cement-based materials. Figure 4 provides useful information to come to the conclusion that ground CBA can be utilized to manufacture high-strength concretes.

4. Conclusions

The following conclusions may be drawn from this investigation as regards the potential reactivity of ground coal bottom ash (GCBA):
  • GCBA has a pozzolanic performance in a similar manner to coal fly ash (CFA). Then, partial or total replacement of coal fly ash by ground coal bottom ash in Portland fly ash and pozzolanic cements does not have a significant effect on pozzolanic properties;
  • CFA reacts slowly with lime until 7 days. Reactivity increases at 14 days and, later on, at 28 days, the Ca(OH)2 consumption sharply increases;
  • GCBA mixed with CFA is adequate to be standardized as new blended cement. Therefore, it is recommended to standardize the GCBA in the cement standards all around the world;
  • This experimental method provides reliable information about the quality of the coal bottom ash.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.M.; methodology, E.M.; software, M.Á.S.; validation, E.M., M.Á.S. and C.A.; formal analysis, E.M.; investigation, E.M.; resources, E.M.; data curation, M.Á.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.Á.S.; writing—review and editing, E.M., M.Á.S. and C.A.; project administration, E.M.; funding acquisition, E.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the CSIC (Intramurales Projects PIE 202060E176).

Acknowledgments

Authors gratefully acknowledge to R. García Carreto (HOLCIM ESPAÑA, S.A.) for many valuable suggestions and J. Díaz and V. Villar (LAFARGE CEMENTOS, S.A.) for help in sampling preparation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 1928E Solid Mineral Fuels. Determination of Gross Calorific Value by the Bomb Calorimetric Method and Calculation of Net Calorific Value; The International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  2. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 1171 Solid Mineral Fuels. Determination of Ash. Specifies a Method for the Determination of the Ash of All Solid Mineral Fuels; The International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  3. Argiz, C.; Menéndez, E.; Sanjuán, M.A. Effect of mixes made of coal bottom ash and fly ash on the mechanical strength and porosity of Portland cement. Mater. Construcc. 2013, 309, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Valentim, B.; Guedes, A.; Flores, D.; Ward, C.R.; Hower, J.C. Variations in fly ash composition with sampling location: Case study from a Portuguese power plant. CCGP J. 2009, 1, 14–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Van den Heede, P.; Ringoot, N.; Beirnaert, A.; Van Brecht, A.; Van den Brande, E.; De Schutter, G.; De Belie, N. Sustainable High Quality Recycling of Aggregates from Waste-to-Energy, Treated in a Wet Bottom Ash Processing Installation, for Use in Concrete Products. Materials 2016, 9, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Valentim, B.; Białecka, B.; Gonçalves, P.A.; Guedes, A.; Guimarães, R.; Cruceru, M.; Całus-Moszko, J.; Popescu, L.G.; Predeanu, G.; Santos, A.C. Undifferentiated Inorganics in Coal Fly Ash and Bottom Ash: Calcispheres, Magnesiacalcispheres, and Magnesiaspheres. Minerals 2018, 8, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Churcill, V.E.; Amirkhanian, S.N. Coal ash utilization in asphalt concrete mixtures. J. Mater. Civil Eng. 1999, 11, 295–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bai, Y.; Darcy, F.; Basheer, P.A.M. Strength and drying shrinkage properties of concrete containing furnace bottom ash as fine aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2005, 19, 691–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bentz, D.P.; Snyder, K.A. Protected paste volume in concrete, extension to internal curing using saturated lightweight fine aggregate. Cem. Concr. Res. 1999, 29, 1863–1867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Predeanu, G.; Popescu, L.G.; Abagiu, T.A.; Panaitescu, C.; Valentim, B.; Guedes, A. Characterization of bottom ash of Pliocene lignite as ceramic composites raw material by petrographic, SEM/EDS and Raman microspectroscopical methods. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2016, 168, 131–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Valentim, B.; Abagiu, A.T.; Anghelescu, L.; Flores, D.; French, D.; Gonçalves, P.; Guedes, A.; Popescu, L.G.; Predeanu, G.; Ribeiro, J.; et al. Assessment of bottom ash landfilled at Ceplea Valley (Romania) as a source of rare earth elements. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2019, 201, 109–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. CEN-CENELEC. European Standard EN 197-1 Cement—Part 1: Composition, Specifications and Conformity Criteria for Common Cements; The European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  13. CEN-CENELEC. European Standard EN 196-2 Methods of Testing Cement—Part 2: Chemical Analysis of the Cement; The European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  14. CEN-CENELEC. European Standard EN 196-5 Methods of Testing Cement—Part 5: Pozzolanicity Test for Pozzolanic Cement; The European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  15. CEN-CENELEC. European Standard EN 450-1 Fly Ash for Concrete—Part 1: Definition, Specifications and Conformity Criteria; The European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  16. CEN-CENELEC. European Standard EN 196-1 Methods of Testing Cement—Part 1: Determination of Strength; The European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  17. ASTM International. ASTM C618–15 Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete; American Society for Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  18. Menéndez, E.; Argiz, C.; Sanjuán, M.Á. Chloride Induced Reinforcement Corrosion in Mortars Containing Coal Bottom Ash and Coal Fly Ash. Materials 2019, 12, 1933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Sanjuán, M.Á.; Argiz, C.; Menéndez, E. Assessment of a new Portland cement component: Ground coal bottom ash. DYNA 2018, 93, 192–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. McCarthy, G.J.; Swanson, K.D.; Keller, L.P.; Blatter, W.C. Mineralogy of western fly ash. Cem. Concr. Res. 1984, 14, 471–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dembas, A. Optimizing the physical and technological properties of cement additives in concrete mixtures. Cem. Concr. Res. 1996, 26, 1737–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hanehara, S.; Tomosawa, F.; Kobayakawa, M.; Hwang, K.R. Effects of water/powder ratio, mixing ratio of fly ash, and curing temperature on pozzolanic reaction of fly ash in cement paste. Cem. Concr. Res. 2001, 31, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Damidot, D.; Lothenbach, B.; Herfort, D.; Glasser, F.P. Thermodynamics and cement science. Cem. Concr. Res. 2011, 41, 679–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Goñi, S.; Lorenzo, M.P.; Guerrero, A.; Hernández, M.S. Calcium hydroxide saturation factors in the pore solution of hydrated Portland cement fly ash pastes. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 1996, 79, 1041–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Douglas, E.; Pouskouleli, G. Prediction of compressive strength of mortars made with Portland cement–blast-furnace slag–fly ash blends. Cem. Concr. Res. 1991, 21, 523–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mehta, P.K.; Monteiro, P.J.M. Concrete, Microstructure, Properties and Materials; Prentice Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  27. Tsimas, S.; Moutsatsou-Tsima, A. High-calcium fly ash as the fourth constituent in concrete: Problems, solutions and perspectives. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2005, 27, 231–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Felekoğlu, B. Utilisation of Turkish fly ashes in cost effective HVFA concrete production. Fuel 2006, 85, 1944–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bouzoubaa, N.; Zhang, M.H.; Bilodeau, A.; Malhotra, V.M. The effect of grinding on the physical properties of fly ashes and a Portland cement clinker. Cem. Concr. Res. 1997, 27, 1861–1874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bouzoubaa, N.; Zhang, M.H.; Malhotra, V.M. Mechanical properties and durability of concrete made with high-volume fly ash blended cements using a coarse fly ash. Cem. Concr. Res. 2001, 31, 1393–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kiattikomol, K.; Jaturapitakkul, C.; Songpiriyakij, S.; Chutubtim, S. A study of ground coarse fly ashes with different fineness from various sources as pozzolanic materials. Cem. Concr. Comp. 2001, 23, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chindaprasirt, P.; Homwuttiwong, S.; Sirivivatnanon, V. Influence of fly ash fineness on strength, drying shrinkage and sulfate resistance of blended cement mortar. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 1087–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chindaprasirt, P.; Chotithanorm, C.; Cao, H.T.; Sirivivatnanon, V. Influence of fly ash fineness on the chloride penetration of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2007, 21, 356–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Erdogdu, K.; Türker, P. Effects of fly ash particle size on strength of Portland cement fly ash mortars. Cem. Concr. Res. 1998, 28, 1217–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Slanicka, S. The influence of fly ash fineness on the strength of concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 1991, 21, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Felekoğlu, B.; Türkel, S.; Kalyoncu, H. Optimization of fineness to maximize the strength activity of high-calcium ground fly ash—Portland cement composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 2053–2061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Jaturapitakkul, C.; Kiattikomol, K.; Sata, V.; Leekeeratikul, T. Use of ground coarse fly ash as a replacement of condensed silica fume in producing high-strength concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 549–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Haque, M.N.; Kayali, O. Properties of high-strength concrete using a fine fly ash. Cem. Concr. Res. 1998, 28, 1445–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
J 04 00018 g001 550
Figure 1. Map of Carboneras in Almeria, in the South of Spain.
Figure 1. Map of Carboneras in Almeria, in the South of Spain.
J 04 00018 g001
J 04 00018 g002 550
Figure 2. Scanning electron micrograph and EDS microanalysis: (a) coal fly ash; (b) ground coal bottom ash.
Figure 2. Scanning electron micrograph and EDS microanalysis: (a) coal fly ash; (b) ground coal bottom ash.
J 04 00018 g002
J 04 00018 g003 550
Figure 3. Constituents pozzolanicity at 1, 3, 7, 14, 28 and 90 days.
Figure 3. Constituents pozzolanicity at 1, 3, 7, 14, 28 and 90 days.
J 04 00018 g003
J 04 00018 g004 550
Figure 4. Pozzolanicity for all the mixes measured at several testing times (EN 196-5): (a) 1 day; (b) 3 days; (c) 7 days; (d) 14 days; (e) 28 days and (f) 90 days.
Figure 4. Pozzolanicity for all the mixes measured at several testing times (EN 196-5): (a) 1 day; (b) 3 days; (c) 7 days; (d) 14 days; (e) 28 days and (f) 90 days.
J 04 00018 g004
Table
Table 1. Codification of the cement mixes of the coal bottom ash (CBA) with coal fly ash (CFA) and cement (CEM I 42.5 N).
Table 1. Codification of the cement mixes of the coal bottom ash (CBA) with coal fly ash (CFA) and cement (CEM I 42.5 N).
CEMENT MIX% MaterialCoal Fly Ash + Coal Bottom Ash Mix Codification
αβγ 1δ 1λ 1Ω
CEM IFly ash0%0%
Bottom ash0%
Cement100%100%
CEM II/A-VFly ash10% 10%9%8%5%0%
Bottom ash 0%1%2%5%10%
Cement90% 90%90%90%90%90%
CEM II/B-VFly ash25% 25%22.5%20%12.5%0%
Bottom ash 0%2.5%5%12.5%25%
Cement75% 75%75%75%75%75%
CEM IV/A (V)Fly ash35% 35%31.5%28%17.5%0%
Bottom ash 0%3.5%7%17.5%35%
Cement65% 65%65%65%65%65%
1 Mix of CBA and CFA.
Table
Table 2. Chemical composition of the coal bottom ash (CBA), coal fly ash (CFA) and cement (CEM I 42.5 N).
Table 2. Chemical composition of the coal bottom ash (CBA), coal fly ash (CFA) and cement (CEM I 42.5 N).
Chemical Composition (%)CementFly Ash (CFA)Bottom Ash (CBA)Physical Properties of Cement
SiO220.950.552.2Specific gravity (kg/m3)3.10
Al2O34.328.927.5Initial setting time (min)205
Fe2O33.54.76.0Final setting time (min)325
CaO62.75.05.9Volume expansion (mm)0.70
MgO1.91.81.7Blaine Specific surface (m2/kg)4050
SO33.40.210.13Compressive strength(MPa)
K2O0.90.800.571 days13.30
Ti2O50.251.561.533 days19.45
P2O50.100.760.747 days37.95
LOI3.693.61.814 days45.25
Insoluble residue 11.0471.375.728 days50.98
CI-0.0230.0010.00190 days55.55
1 Na2CO3 method.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Menéndez, E.; Argiz, C.; Sanjuán, M.Á. Reactivity of Ground Coal Bottom Ash to Be Used in Portland Cement. J 2021, 4, 223-232. https://doi.org/10.3390/j4030018

AMA Style

Menéndez E, Argiz C, Sanjuán MÁ. Reactivity of Ground Coal Bottom Ash to Be Used in Portland Cement. J. 2021; 4(3):223-232. https://doi.org/10.3390/j4030018

Chicago/Turabian Style

Menéndez, Esperanza, Cristina Argiz, and Miguel Ángel Sanjuán. 2021. "Reactivity of Ground Coal Bottom Ash to Be Used in Portland Cement" J 4, no. 3: 223-232. https://doi.org/10.3390/j4030018

APA Style

Menéndez, E., Argiz, C., & Sanjuán, M. Á. (2021). Reactivity of Ground Coal Bottom Ash to Be Used in Portland Cement. J, 4(3), 223-232. https://doi.org/10.3390/j4030018

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop