Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T10:14:46.371Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Processing Characteristics and Strength of Magnesium Phosphate Cement Formulations Compatible with UK Nuclear Waste Treatment Plants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2012

W. Montague ,
L. Vandeperre  and
M. Hayes
W. Montague
Affiliation:
Centre for Advanced Structural Ceramics, Department of Materials, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, U.K.
L. Vandeperre
Affiliation:
Centre for Advanced Structural Ceramics, Department of Materials, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, U.K.
M. Hayes
Affiliation:
National Nuclear Laboratory, Chadwick House, Warrington Road, Birchwood Park, Warrington, WA3 6AE, U.K.
Get access

Abstract

Cementation is the dominant encapsulation technology for UK intermediate level waste (ILW) from nuclear operations. However, Portland cement (PC) based encapsulation systems encourage corrosion of reactive metals such as uranium, aluminium and magnesium. Thus, the development of alternative systems is required. A candidate alternative system is magnesium potassium phosphate cement (MKPC) and in this paper the results of a wide testing programme to establish a formulation envelope for MKPC is presented. This envelope determines a region where bleed production, fluidity and workability are within a range suitable for plant processing and encapsulation. Additionally, the evolution of the compressive strength with curing age for multiple formulations and curing temperatures was determined. Fly ash (PFA) inclusion was found to be highly beneficial to slurry workability and its addition also improved strength; high PFA content formulations reached compressive strength values of 34 ±2 MPa and 44 ± 2 MPa at 28 days and 180 days respectively. A decreased in achieved compressive strengths was observed on increasing the curing temperature from 47 °C to 72 °C.

Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1475: Symposium NW – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXXV , 2012 , imrc11-1475-nw35-p03
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2012

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

REFERENCES

1. Rao, A. J., Pagilla, K. R., and Wagh, A. S., J. Air Waste Ma., 50(9), 1623–1631 (2000).10.1080/10473289.2000.10464193Google Scholar
2. Singh, D., Mandalika, V., Parulekar, S., and Wagh, A. S., J. Nucl. Mater., 348(3), 272–282 (2006).10.1016/j.jnucmat.2005.09.026Google Scholar
3. Wagh, A. S., Singh, D., and Jeong, S. Y., US Patent No. 5 830 815, (Nov. 1998).Google Scholar
4. Wagh, A. S., Strain, R., Jeong, S. Y., Reed, D., Krause, T., and Singh, D., J. Nucl. Mater., 265(3), 295–307 (1999).10.1016/S0022-3115(98)00650-3Google Scholar
5. Wagh, A. S., Maloney, D., and Thompson, G. H., US Patent No. 7 294 291 B2 (Nov. 2007).Google Scholar
6. Singh, D., Wagh, A. S., Tlustochowicz, M., and Jeong, S. Y., Waste Manage., 18(2), 135–143, (1998).10.1016/S0956-053X(98)00018-XGoogle Scholar
7. Covill, A., Hyatt, N. C., Hill, J., and Collier, N. C., Adv. Appl. Ceram., 110(3), 151–156 (2010).10.1179/1743676110Y.0000000008Google Scholar
8. Hayes, M., Proc. Conf. WM’07, Tucson, AZ, USA, February–March 2007.Google Scholar
9. Chau, C. K., Qiao, F., and Li, Z., Constr. Build. Mater., 25(6), 2911–2917 (2011).10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.12.035Google Scholar
10. Hayes, M. (Personal Correspondence).Google Scholar
11. Yang, Q. and Wu, X., Cement Concrete Res., 29(3), 389–396 (1999).10.1016/S0008-8846(98)00230-0Google Scholar
12. Bs EN 13395-2:2002, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium (2002).Google Scholar
13. Wagh, A. S., in Chemically Bonded Phosphate Ceramics, Edited by Harmon, J. (Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 2004) p. 161–165.Google Scholar