Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T23:22:42.233Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Microprobe Study of Chemical Inter-Grain Variation In Class-F Fly Ash: Application of Fuzzy C-Means Cluster Analysis and Non-Linear Mapping

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

Hans S. Pietersen ,
Simon P. Vriend ,
Rene E. P. Poorter  and
Jan M. Bijen
Hans S. Pietersen
Affiliation:
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Materials Science Section, Delft Technical University, 2628 CN Delft, The Netherlands
Simon P. Vriend
Affiliation:
Faculty of Geology and Geophysics, Department of Chemical Geology, Utrecht University, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands
Rene E. P. Poorter
Affiliation:
Faculty of Geology and Geophysics, Department of Chemical Geology, Utrecht University, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands
Jan M. Bijen
Affiliation:
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Materials Science Section, Delft Technical University, 2628 CN Delft, The Netherlands
Get access

Abstract

The chemistry of individual grains of several Class F fly ashes has been investigated by electron microprobe analysis. To interpret the analytical data-set, a combination of two multivariate statistical procedures was applied. The method involves the use of both fuzzy c-means cluster analysis (FCM) and non-linear mapping (NLM). It allows for a quick visual interpretation of the fly ash analysis and provides information which is not obtained through the use of the commonly used classical two-or three dimensional data representation plots alone. The method provides information on the occurrence of “outlying” samples, such as quartz grains, lime, calcium-sulfate or iron-containing particles. When the data-set is truncated for these outlying particles, cluster analysis of all ash data indicates that a model of 4–5 clusters can best explain chemical differences between the bulk of the particles of several class-F fly ashes. These clusters are related to each other by an inverse relation between the SiO2 and the A12O3 content, and some clusters display marked differences of either the oxides of Ti, Fe, Ca, Mg, K and/or K and Na. Inter-grain variation of one separate fly ash indicates that similar variations occur within individual fly ashes, only the absolute differences being smaller. The results are interpreted to represent either the coalescence or fusion of chemically different particles or small chemical differences in precursor clay minerals. The method of data-reduction presented here provides quick information on chemical relationships and is particularly suited to evaluate small data-sets. The method has potential to be combined with other input parameters, such as pozzolanic activity, glass content, particle size distribution and others.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 178: Symposium W – Fly Ash and Coal Conversion By-Products VI , 1989 , 115
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1990

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

1. Fraay, A.L.A., Bijen, J.M.J.M. and de Haan, Y.M., Cem. Concr. Res., 19, 235 (1989).Google Scholar
2. Larbi, J.A. and J.M. Bijen (this volume)Google Scholar
3. Pietersen, H.S., Fraay, A.L.A. and J.M.J.M. Bijen (this volume).Google Scholar
4. Stevenson, R.J. and Larson, R.A. in Fly Ash and Coal Conversion By-Products: Characterization. Utilization and Disposal, edited by McCarthy, G.J. and Lauf, R.J., (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 43, Pittsburgh, PA 1985) pp. 177–186.Google Scholar
5. Stevenson, R.J. and Huber, T.P. in Fly Ash and Coal Conversion By-Products: Characterization Utilization and Disposal, edited by McCarthy, G.J., Glasser, F.P., Roy, D.M. and Diamond, S. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc., 86 Pittsburgh, PA 1987) pp. 99–108.Google Scholar
6. Stevenson, R.J. and Huber, T.P. in Fly Ash and Coal Conversion By-Products: Characterization, Utilization and Disposal, edited by McCarthy, G.J., Glasser, F.P., Roy, D.M. and Hemmings, R.T. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 113, Pittsburgh, PA 1988) pp. 87–98.Google Scholar
7. Howarth, R.J. and Sinding-Larsen, R. R. in Statistics and Data Analysis in Geochemical Prospecting, edited by R.J. Howarth, 2, Chap. 6, pp. 207–283. Elsevier.Google Scholar
8. Chayes, F., Ratio correlation. University of Chicago Press (1971).Google Scholar
9. Aitchison, J., The Statistical Analysis of Compositional Data, Chapman and Hall (1986).Google Scholar
10. Vriend, S.P., van Gaans, P.F.M., Middelburg, J. and de Nijs, A., Applied Geochemistry, 3, 213 (1988).Google Scholar
11. Oostindier, J., Taufen, P.M. and Vriend, S.P., J. of Geoch. Exploration, 31, 57–73 (1988).Google Scholar
12. Sammon, J.W., IEEE Trans. Comput. C18,401–409 (1969).Google Scholar
13. Zadeh, L.A., Inf. and Control 8, 338–353 (1965).Google Scholar
14. Bezdek, C.J., Pattern Recognition with Fuzzy Objective Function Algorithms, Plenum Press (1981).Google Scholar
15. Bezdek, C.J., Ehrlich, R. and Full, W., FCM: the fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm, Comput. Geosci. 10, 191–203 (1984).Google Scholar
16. Barta, L.E., Vamos, G., Toqan, M.A., Teare, J.D., Beer, J.M. and Sarofim, A.F., (this volume).Google Scholar
17. Hemmings, R.T. and Berry, E.E. in Fly Ash and Coal Conversion By-Products: Characterization, Utilization and Disposal, edited by McCarthy, G.J., Glasser, F.P., Roy, D.M. and Hemmings, R.T. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 113, Pittsburgh, PA 1988) pp. 3–38.Google Scholar
18. Roy, D.M., Luke, K. and Glasser, F.P. in Fly Ash and Coal Conversion By-Products: Characterization. Utilization and Disposal. edited by McCarthy, G.J. and Lauf, R.J. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 43, Pittsburgh, PA 1985) pp. 3–20.Google Scholar
19. Pietersen, H.S. and J.M.J.M. Bijen (to be published).Google Scholar