Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

remove_circle_outline

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (1)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = synthesized biomass recycled aggregate

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
12 pages, 4548 KB  
Article
Assessment on the Properties of Biomass-Aggregate Geopolymer Concrete
by Haibao Liu, Qiuyi Li, Hongzhu Quan, Xiaolong Xu, Qianying Wang and Songyuan Ni
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(7), 3561; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12073561 - 31 Mar 2022
Cited by 21 | Viewed by 3023
Abstract
Energy efficiency is one of the important indicators for the evaluation of green buildings, and it is also related to the sustainable development of the building industry and energy conservation. Using agricultural waste in concrete to produce biomass recycled aggregates can effectively utilize [...] Read more.
Energy efficiency is one of the important indicators for the evaluation of green buildings, and it is also related to the sustainable development of the building industry and energy conservation. Using agricultural waste in concrete to produce biomass recycled aggregates can effectively utilize agricultural solid waste to develop new wall materials with economic and energy-efficient properties. In this study, industrial wastes such as ground, granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) and fly ash (FA) were used to replace cement as cementitious material and coconut shell (CC) as lightweight coarse aggregate (LWA) in lightweight concrete. The lightweight coconut shell aggregate concrete with a density of less than 1950 kg/m3 was used as structural concrete. The thermal conductivity of synthesized biomass recycled aggregate concrete (SBRAC) was about 0.47 W/mK, which is 217% and 19% lower than that of natural aggregate concrete (NAC) and crushed coconut shell aggregate concrete (CCSAC), respectively. With the same volume, the costs of SBRAC and CCSAC are 25.1% and 4.9% lower than that of NAC, respectively. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Reinforced Concrete: Materials, Physical Properties and Applications)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop