Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Mineralogical analysis reveals four chemical grades in Saudi granitic silspar, indicating its industrial viability for commercial ceramic manufacturing.
Feldspar and quartz are essential ceramic raw materials, with feldspar acting as a flux and quartz as a structural filler. Feldspathic sand derived from granitic masses of the eastern Arabian Shield represents a promising local source. This study evaluates upgraded granitic detritus, commercially termed silspar, from the Khurs granite of the Dawadimi terrane. Twenty-five samples were chemically and technologically characterized; one compositionally anomalous sample (S2) was retained in the analytical tables for transparency but excluded before resource-level statistical preprocessing. Pearson correlation, principal component analysis and Ward hierarchical clustering were applied to 24 representative samples using eight chemical variables, while shrinkage, loss on ignition (LOI), whiteness (L*) and water absorption were used for external technological validation. Four chemistry-defined groups were identified: S1 and S3 form a dark impurity-rich pair; S4–S9 form the cleanest ceramic-grade group; S10–S13, S15–S17 and S24 define a transitional Ca-Fe-influenced group; and S14, S18–S23 and S25 form a more coherent potassic group. The firing variables differ significantly among the chemistry-defined groups under the standardized laboratory procedure. The results support controlled ceramic use of the representative Khurs-derived silspar, subject to stockpile homogenization and impurity control. Because phase proportions are normative estimates rather than direct XRD determinations, the work is presented as an integrated preliminary industrial-mineral screening assessment rather than a complete quantitative mineral-phase characterization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Al-Aqydy et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: