Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:19:12.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sulfate-Resistant Portland Cement from Lime-Soda Sinter Process Residue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

J. A. Chesley  and
G. Burnet
J. A. Chesley
Affiliation:
Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc., 5420 Old Orchard Road, Skokie, IL 60077
G. Burnet
Affiliation:
Ames Laboratory, U.S.D.O.E. and Department of Chemical Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.
Get access

Abstract

A by-product (residue) from the Ames Lime-Soda Sinter Process for recovering alumina from power plant fly ash consists largely of dicalcium silicate and can be used as a raw material for the manufacture of sulfate-resistant (Type V) portland cement. Utilization of the residue will eliminate the need for its disposal and will improve the economic feasibility of the lime-soda sinter process. Laboratory burnability tests were used to identify optimum cement mixes and burning temperatures from both clinker quality and economic perspectives. At a typical kiln temperature of 1450°C, cements that formed concrete that exceeded ASTM specifications for strength were obtained for a limited range of lime-saturation factors and silica ratios. A highly conservative cost estimate for a combined alumina recovery and cement manufacturing facility for a 1000 MWe coal-fired power station gave a 4.7% internal rate of return.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 113: Symposium Q – Fly Ash and Coal Conversion By-Products IV , 1987 , 163
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Ash at Work, American Coal Association, Washington, DC, XVI (3), 4 (1984).Google Scholar
2. Chesley, J.A. and Burnet, G., Proc. Conf. on Waste Management for the Energy Industries, Grand Forks, ND, 91 (1987).Google Scholar
3. Chesley, J.A., unpublished PhD thesis, Iowa State University (1987).Google Scholar
4. Murtha, M.J. and Burnet, G., Proc. 5th Intern. Ash Util. Symp., Atlanta, GA, 1979, U.S.D.O.E. METC/SP-79/10, p. 68; Resources and Conversation 9, 301 (1982).Google Scholar
5. Tabikh, A.A. and Weht, R.J., Cem. Concr. Res. 1, 317 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Cement, lime, gypsum, and related building materials and systems. The Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol.4.01, (ASTM, Philadelphia, PA 1986).Google Scholar
7. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Significance of Tests and Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials. STP-169B (ASTM, Philadelphia, PA 1981).Google Scholar
8. Katell, J., Proc. 3rd Kentucky Coal Refuse Disposal and Util. Sem., Lexington, KY (1977).Google Scholar
9. Oberholster, R.E., Van Aardt, J.H.P., and Brandt, M.P., in Structure and Performance of Cements, Barnes, P. ed. (Applied Science Publishers LTD, Essex, England 1983).Google Scholar
10. Lea, F.M., The Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, 3rd ed. (Chemical Publishing Company, New York, 1971).Google Scholar