journal article·2011-12

Effect of size of fly ash particle on enhancement of mullite content and glass formation

Parveen Sultana, Sukhen Das, Biswajoy Bagchi, Alakananda Bhattacharya, Ruma Basu, Papiya Nandy

Bulletin of Materials Science· Volume 34· Issue 7
Publisher page

Abstract

Quartz is widely replaced by fly ash in traditional porcelain composite. Increased strength and stability of the fly ash-mixed composite depends on the quantity and crystallinity of the mullite phase in the fly ash. Our aim in this investigation is to increase the formation of mullite in nanocrystalline form and study the effect of temperature. Quantitative estimation of mullite and residual quartz content were done by X-ray diffraction (XRD) and nanostructure and crystallization were studied using differential thermal analysis (DTA), field effect scanning electron microscopy (FESEM), XRD and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. The results show that fly ash sieved through 250 holes/cm2 mesh contain more mullite initially and growth of mullite as well as glass formation was faster in this sample compared to coarse fly ash. The maximum mullite in these samples was formed at 1600°C. Transformation of quartz and cristobalite phases into glassy phase was also faster for smaller particle sizes of fly ash.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Recycling and utilization of industrial and municipal waste in materials production · Advanced ceramic materials synthesis · Glass properties and applications

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (19)

Show source-provided references
1. Alexander I F and Klug H P 1954 (New York: Wiley) Ch 7
2. Belardi G et al 1998 Conserv. Recycling 24 16710.1016/S0921-3449(98)00016-0 ↗
3. Brindley G W and Nakahira M 1959 Am. Ceram. Soc. 42 315
4. Cameron W E 1977 Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull. 56 1003
5. Cioffi R, Pernice P, Aronne A, Catauzo M and Quattroni G 1994 J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 13 14310.1016/0955-2219(94)90112-0 ↗
6. Dana K, Das S and Das S K 2004 J. Euro. Ceram. Soc. 24 316910.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2003.10.008 ↗
7. Hongping H et al 2004 Spectrochim. Acta Part A: Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 60 106110.1016/j.saa.2003.09.028 ↗
8. Kansal P and Laine R M 1997 J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 80 259710.1111/j.1151-2916.1997.tb03162.x ↗
9. Kumar S, Singh K K and Rao P R 2001 J. Mater. Sci. 36 591710.1023/A:1012936928769 ↗
10. Mazdiyasni K S and Brown L M 1972 J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 55 54810.1111/j.1151-2916.1972.tb13434.x ↗
11. Ohira H et al 1991 J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 10 84710.1007/BF00724757 ↗
12. Okada K, Otsuka N and Somiya S 1991 Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull. 70 1633
13. Orefice R L and Vasconcelos W L 1997 J. Sol-Gel Sci. Technol. 9 239
14. Pandian N S and Krishna K C 2003 J. Test. Evaluat. 31 47910.1520/JTE12375J ↗
15. Schneider H, Okada K and Pask J 1994 Mullite and mullite ceramics
16. Schneider H, Rodewald K and Eberhard E 1993 J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 76 289610.1111/j.1151-2916.1993.tb04033.x ↗
17. Somiya S and Hirata Y 1991 Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull. 70 1624
18. Soundararajan R, Kuhn G, Atisivan R, Bose S and Bandyopadhyay A 2001 J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 84 50910.1111/j.1151-2916.2001.tb00691.x ↗
19. Yeledhalli N A et al 2007 J. Agric. Sci. 20 531