English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

37 páginas, 5 figuras, 6 tablas.[ES] Este trabajo ha tenido por objetivo determinar la viabilidad\udde uso de dos residuos agroindustriales incinerados,\udcenizas C1 y C2, como posibles adiciones puzolánicas\udartificiales, para fabricar cementos y/o de sus\udproductos derivados, hormigones y morteros tradicionales\udy especiales, principalmente; de aquí su estudio\udcomparativo con el humo de sílice español, HS. Y la conclusión\udque se obtuvo fue que las dos cenizas pueden\udser consideradas como adiciones puzolánicas artificiales\udcon carácter químico silícico cierto, pero sólo una, la C2,\udpodría llegar a ser considerada como “microsílice”, porque\udsu pérdida por calcinación se encuentra dentro de\udsu límite permitido. En cambio la C1, no, porque dicha\udpérdida fue demasiado elevada, aún cuando, su contenido\udde sílice reactiva, SiO2r-, era mayor por lo que en\udsu caracterización química y sulfática se mostró más\udcercano al del HS que la C2. Finalmente se ha podido\udjustificar también que, la adopción de cualquier método\udde ensayo para determinar la resistencia potencial a los\udsulfatos de los cementos portland con filler calizo carece\udde sentido.[EN] This study attempted to determine the viability of using\udincinerated agro-industrial waste, ashes C1 and C2, as\udpossible artificial pozzolanic additions in traditional and highperformance\udconcretes and mortars, mainly, and for this\udreason, a comparative study was likewise conducted with\udSpanish silica fume (HS). The conclusion drawn from the\udfindings was that the two ashes used could be regarded to\udbe centainly, silicic artificial pozzolanic additions but only C2,\udwhich had a higher SiO2 content, could be regarded to be a\ud“microsilica”, however, because its loss on ignition, L.O.I., fell\udwithin the acceptable range of variability. In contrast, C1\udcould not be so regarded because its L.O.I. was too high,\uddespite its higher reactive silica SiO2r- content. For this\udreason, ash C1 had to be ruled out for any of the proposed\uduses, even though in terms of chemical and sulfatic\udcharacterization it was closer to HS than C2. By contrast, the\udmechanical strength values of C2 and HS were comparable,\udmaking the former initially acceptable for any of such uses.\udFinally, it has also been justified that, adoption of any method\udof trial to determine potential resistance to the sulfates of the\udPortland cements with calcareous filler lacks of sense.Peer reviewe

Valorización de residuos agroindustriales incinerados como adición puzolánica. Estudio comparativo con el humo de sílice español