Comparison of ground bottom ash and limestone as additions in blended cements

The number of fluidized bed power plants is growing rapidly due to economic and environmental benefits. These facilities produce larger quantities of bottom ash than conventional boilers. This ash exhibits pozzolanic activity once ground, but due to regulation limitations this by-product is nowadays...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Materials and structures 2017-02, Vol.50 (1), p.1, Article 84
Main Authors: González-Fonteboa, Belén, Carro-López, Diego, de Brito, Jorge, Martínez-Abella, Fernando, Seara-Paz, Sindy, Gutiérrez-Mainar, Salvador
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Building construction
Building Materials
Civil Engineering
Engineering
Machines
Manufacturing
Materials Science
Original Article
Processes
Solid Mechanics
Theoretical and Applied Mechanics
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c355t-cf60371fac030faac3cd5aa95392688ddc001de75fd065c0eba27bb4e2f284363
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c355t-cf60371fac030faac3cd5aa95392688ddc001de75fd065c0eba27bb4e2f284363
container_end_page
container_issue 1
container_start_page 1
container_title Materials and structures
container_volume 50
creator González-Fonteboa, Belén
Carro-López, Diego
de Brito, Jorge
Martínez-Abella, Fernando
Seara-Paz, Sindy
Gutiérrez-Mainar, Salvador
description The number of fluidized bed power plants is growing rapidly due to economic and environmental benefits. These facilities produce larger quantities of bottom ash than conventional boilers. This ash exhibits pozzolanic activity once ground, but due to regulation limitations this by-product is nowadays destined to landfill. Blended cements are the most common cements in Europe and their consumption is continuously growing due to the reduction of environmental impact they allow. In this work, ground bottom ash (GBA) is characterized to determine whether it is suitable for blended cements’ production. This GBA was used in ratios of 10, 20 and 40 % as cement replacement. At the same time, it was compared with type I cement without additions and also with the second most used addition in blended cements: limestone. The cements with GBA showed acceptable performance to produce general purpose cements in the frame of present regulations, reaching 52.5 MPa at 28 days for 10 % of substitution. When compared with limestone, the cements with GBA presented higher compressive strength, better durability and a slight reduction in workability. At the same time, GBA led to higher clinker reductions, thus directly causing lower environmental impacts, and also indirect benefits from the prevention of the disposal in landfill of this bottom ash from fluidized-bed boilers.
doi_str_mv 10.1617/s11527-016-0954-x
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1826416309</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4206579711</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c355t-cf60371fac030faac3cd5aa95392688ddc001de75fd065c0eba27bb4e2f284363</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEtLAzEUhYMoWKs_wF3AdTQ3mWQmSym-oOJG1yGTR53SSWoyhfrvTakLN67ug3POvXwIXQO9BQntXQEQrCUUJKFKNGR_gmbQtUBk1_LT2nOhiFCqPUcXpawp5QqAzdDrIo1bk4eSIk4Br3LaRYf7NE1pxKZ8YlPHzTD6MqXo6wYb54ZpSLHgIeJ-46PzDls_-jiVS3QWzKb4q986Rx-PD--LZ7J8e3pZ3C-J5UJMxAZJeQvBWMppMMZy64QxSnDFZNc5ZykF51sRHJXCUt8b1vZ941lgXcMln6ObY-42p69d_U2v0y7HelJDx2QDklNVVXBU2ZxKyT7obR5Gk781UH2gpo_UdKWmD9T0vnrY0VOqNq58_pP8r-kHZz5wzw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1826416309</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of ground bottom ash and limestone as additions in blended cements</title><source>Springer Link</source><creator>González-Fonteboa, Belén ; Carro-López, Diego ; de Brito, Jorge ; Martínez-Abella, Fernando ; Seara-Paz, Sindy ; Gutiérrez-Mainar, Salvador</creator><creatorcontrib>González-Fonteboa, Belén ; Carro-López, Diego ; de Brito, Jorge ; Martínez-Abella, Fernando ; Seara-Paz, Sindy ; Gutiérrez-Mainar, Salvador</creatorcontrib><description>The number of fluidized bed power plants is growing rapidly due to economic and environmental benefits. These facilities produce larger quantities of bottom ash than conventional boilers. This ash exhibits pozzolanic activity once ground, but due to regulation limitations this by-product is nowadays destined to landfill. Blended cements are the most common cements in Europe and their consumption is continuously growing due to the reduction of environmental impact they allow. In this work, ground bottom ash (GBA) is characterized to determine whether it is suitable for blended cements’ production. This GBA was used in ratios of 10, 20 and 40 % as cement replacement. At the same time, it was compared with type I cement without additions and also with the second most used addition in blended cements: limestone. The cements with GBA showed acceptable performance to produce general purpose cements in the frame of present regulations, reaching 52.5 MPa at 28 days for 10 % of substitution. When compared with limestone, the cements with GBA presented higher compressive strength, better durability and a slight reduction in workability. At the same time, GBA led to higher clinker reductions, thus directly causing lower environmental impacts, and also indirect benefits from the prevention of the disposal in landfill of this bottom ash from fluidized-bed boilers.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1359-5997</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1871-6873</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1617/s11527-016-0954-x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Building construction ; Building Materials ; Civil Engineering ; Engineering ; Machines ; Manufacturing ; Materials Science ; Original Article ; Processes ; Solid Mechanics ; Theoretical and Applied Mechanics</subject><ispartof>Materials and structures, 2017-02, Vol.50 (1), p.1, Article 84</ispartof><rights>RILEM 2016</rights><rights>Materials and Structures is a copyright of Springer, 2017.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c355t-cf60371fac030faac3cd5aa95392688ddc001de75fd065c0eba27bb4e2f284363</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c355t-cf60371fac030faac3cd5aa95392688ddc001de75fd065c0eba27bb4e2f284363</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,786,790,27957,27958</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>González-Fonteboa, Belén</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carro-López, Diego</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Brito, Jorge</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martínez-Abella, Fernando</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seara-Paz, Sindy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gutiérrez-Mainar, Salvador</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of ground bottom ash and limestone as additions in blended cements</title><title>Materials and structures</title><addtitle>Mater Struct</addtitle><description>The number of fluidized bed power plants is growing rapidly due to economic and environmental benefits. These facilities produce larger quantities of bottom ash than conventional boilers. This ash exhibits pozzolanic activity once ground, but due to regulation limitations this by-product is nowadays destined to landfill. Blended cements are the most common cements in Europe and their consumption is continuously growing due to the reduction of environmental impact they allow. In this work, ground bottom ash (GBA) is characterized to determine whether it is suitable for blended cements’ production. This GBA was used in ratios of 10, 20 and 40 % as cement replacement. At the same time, it was compared with type I cement without additions and also with the second most used addition in blended cements: limestone. The cements with GBA showed acceptable performance to produce general purpose cements in the frame of present regulations, reaching 52.5 MPa at 28 days for 10 % of substitution. When compared with limestone, the cements with GBA presented higher compressive strength, better durability and a slight reduction in workability. At the same time, GBA led to higher clinker reductions, thus directly causing lower environmental impacts, and also indirect benefits from the prevention of the disposal in landfill of this bottom ash from fluidized-bed boilers.</description><subject>Building construction</subject><subject>Building Materials</subject><subject>Civil Engineering</subject><subject>Engineering</subject><subject>Machines</subject><subject>Manufacturing</subject><subject>Materials Science</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Processes</subject><subject>Solid Mechanics</subject><subject>Theoretical and Applied Mechanics</subject><issn>1359-5997</issn><issn>1871-6873</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kEtLAzEUhYMoWKs_wF3AdTQ3mWQmSym-oOJG1yGTR53SSWoyhfrvTakLN67ug3POvXwIXQO9BQntXQEQrCUUJKFKNGR_gmbQtUBk1_LT2nOhiFCqPUcXpawp5QqAzdDrIo1bk4eSIk4Br3LaRYf7NE1pxKZ8YlPHzTD6MqXo6wYb54ZpSLHgIeJ-46PzDls_-jiVS3QWzKb4q986Rx-PD--LZ7J8e3pZ3C-J5UJMxAZJeQvBWMppMMZy64QxSnDFZNc5ZykF51sRHJXCUt8b1vZ941lgXcMln6ObY-42p69d_U2v0y7HelJDx2QDklNVVXBU2ZxKyT7obR5Gk781UH2gpo_UdKWmD9T0vnrY0VOqNq58_pP8r-kHZz5wzw</recordid><startdate>20170201</startdate><enddate>20170201</enddate><creator>González-Fonteboa, Belén</creator><creator>Carro-López, Diego</creator><creator>de Brito, Jorge</creator><creator>Martínez-Abella, Fernando</creator><creator>Seara-Paz, Sindy</creator><creator>Gutiérrez-Mainar, Salvador</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170201</creationdate><title>Comparison of ground bottom ash and limestone as additions in blended cements</title><author>González-Fonteboa, Belén ; Carro-López, Diego ; de Brito, Jorge ; Martínez-Abella, Fernando ; Seara-Paz, Sindy ; Gutiérrez-Mainar, Salvador</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c355t-cf60371fac030faac3cd5aa95392688ddc001de75fd065c0eba27bb4e2f284363</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Building construction</topic><topic>Building Materials</topic><topic>Civil Engineering</topic><topic>Engineering</topic><topic>Machines</topic><topic>Manufacturing</topic><topic>Materials Science</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Processes</topic><topic>Solid Mechanics</topic><topic>Theoretical and Applied Mechanics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>González-Fonteboa, Belén</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carro-López, Diego</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Brito, Jorge</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martínez-Abella, Fernando</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seara-Paz, Sindy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gutiérrez-Mainar, Salvador</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>Materials and structures</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>González-Fonteboa, Belén</au><au>Carro-López, Diego</au><au>de Brito, Jorge</au><au>Martínez-Abella, Fernando</au><au>Seara-Paz, Sindy</au><au>Gutiérrez-Mainar, Salvador</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of ground bottom ash and limestone as additions in blended cements</atitle><jtitle>Materials and structures</jtitle><stitle>Mater Struct</stitle><date>2017-02-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>50</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><pages>1-</pages><artnum>84</artnum><issn>1359-5997</issn><eissn>1871-6873</eissn><abstract>The number of fluidized bed power plants is growing rapidly due to economic and environmental benefits. These facilities produce larger quantities of bottom ash than conventional boilers. This ash exhibits pozzolanic activity once ground, but due to regulation limitations this by-product is nowadays destined to landfill. Blended cements are the most common cements in Europe and their consumption is continuously growing due to the reduction of environmental impact they allow. In this work, ground bottom ash (GBA) is characterized to determine whether it is suitable for blended cements’ production. This GBA was used in ratios of 10, 20 and 40 % as cement replacement. At the same time, it was compared with type I cement without additions and also with the second most used addition in blended cements: limestone. The cements with GBA showed acceptable performance to produce general purpose cements in the frame of present regulations, reaching 52.5 MPa at 28 days for 10 % of substitution. When compared with limestone, the cements with GBA presented higher compressive strength, better durability and a slight reduction in workability. At the same time, GBA led to higher clinker reductions, thus directly causing lower environmental impacts, and also indirect benefits from the prevention of the disposal in landfill of this bottom ash from fluidized-bed boilers.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1617/s11527-016-0954-x</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1359-5997
ispartof Materials and structures, 2017-02, Vol.50 (1), p.1, Article 84
issn 1359-5997
1871-6873
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1826416309
source Springer Link
subjects Building construction
Building Materials
Civil Engineering
Engineering
Machines
Manufacturing
Materials Science
Original Article
Processes
Solid Mechanics
Theoretical and Applied Mechanics
title Comparison of ground bottom ash and limestone as additions in blended cements
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-09-22T19%3A26%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20ground%20bottom%20ash%20and%20limestone%20as%20additions%20in%20blended%20cements&rft.jtitle=Materials%20and%20structures&rft.au=Gonz%C3%A1lez-Fonteboa,%20Bel%C3%A9n&rft.date=2017-02-01&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.pages=1-&rft.artnum=84&rft.issn=1359-5997&rft.eissn=1871-6873&rft_id=info:doi/10.1617/s11527-016-0954-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4206579711%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c355t-cf60371fac030faac3cd5aa95392688ddc001de75fd065c0eba27bb4e2f284363%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1826416309&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true