This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Characterizing the reactivity of coal combustion by-products, particularly coal bottom ash (CBA), is crucial for their effective use as cement alternatives, especially when incorporating CBA from various sources in cementitious composites. This study investigates the reactivity of both ground CBA and coal fly ash (CFA) from Class F and Class C using heat of hydration analysis and R 3 bound water measurements in the cementitious paste, and their correlation with the compressive strength of cement mortar. Results showed Class F ashes improved early-age properties, while Class C ashes contributed at later-age stages due to higher CaO and sufficient SiO 2 contents. Compressive strength results indicated Class F-based cement mortar exhibited 10 % higher strength at 2 days, but Class C surpassed Class F by 3 % and 12 % at 7 and 28 days, respectively. Class F-based cementitious pastes showed a higher peak heat flow (4.46 mW/g) than Class C (3.92 mW/g) and 4 % higher cumulative heat release at 2 days, while Class C exceeded Class F by 2 % at 7 days. R 3 bound water measurements revealed Class C ground CBA and CFA outperformed Class F by up to 46 % and 26 % at 7 and 28 days, respectively. Ground CBA exhibited higher bound water content than CFA for both Class C (32.4 > 21.6 g/100 g) and Class F (25.8 > 20.5 g/100 g) at 28 days. All investigated coal ashes demonstrated substantial reactivity and positive strength contributions, with strong correlations supporting the effectiveness of Class F and Class C ground CBA and CFA in cementitious applications. • Evaluation of CBA and CFA reactivity from Class F and C sources in cement production. • Correlation of heat flow and R 3 bound water content with compressive strength. • Class F ashes improved early-age properties, while Class C contributed at later age. • Ground CBA exhibited higher reactivity than CFA, enhancing its application potential. • Correlations confirmed the viability of Class F and Class C ashes, especially CBA.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tiu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: