Carbonation Resistance of Fly Ash-Slag Based Geopolymer Concrete

被引：0

作者：

Yuan Y. ^{[1
]}

Zhao R. ^{[1
]}

Zhan Y. ^{[1
,2
]}

Li F. ^{[1
]}

Cheng Z. ^{[1
]}

Li J. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] School of Civil Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu

[2] Institute of Civil Engineering Materials, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu

来源：

Xinan Jiaotong Daxue Xuebao/Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University | 2021年 / 56卷 / 06期

关键词：

Carbonation models; Class F fly ash; Geopolymer concrete; Pore structure; Rapid carbonation test; Slag;

D O I：

10.3969/j.issn.0258-2724.20191151

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Two kinds of Class F fly ash-slag based geopolymer concrete, namely GPC-10 (10% slag content, 80 ℃ high-temperature curing) and GPC-50 (50% slag content, standard curing), are characterized by good mechanical properties. To understand better their carbonation resistance, rapid carbonation tests were carried out on the two kinds of geopolymer concrete in comparison with the ordinary Portland cement concrete (OPCC). The damage of concrete was evaluated in terms of compressive strength and splitting tensile strength. To analyze the damage cause, the composition and pore structure of the carbonized materials were investigated using X-ray energy spectroscopy (EDS) and mercury intrusion test (MIP), respectively. On this basis, carbonation models of the two kinds of concrete were established. The results show that compared with the OPCC, the geopolymer concrete has a weak carbonation resistance, especially for GPC-50, the type with high calcium content, in which the main product C-A-S-H was decomposed during carbonation, leading to an increase in porosity and thus accelerating the carbonation rate, and the carbonation depth has a linear relation with time. The 28 d carbonization depth of OPCC, GPC-10 and GPC-50 reached 2.0, 9.2 and 18.8 mm, respectively. © 2021, Editorial Department of Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University. All right reserved.

引用

页码：1275 / 1282

页数：7

共 30 条

[1] pp. 19-35, (1983)
[2] pp. 16-25, (2002)
[3] MARQUES P F, CARLOS C, NUNES A., Carbonation service life modelling of RC structures for concrete with Portland and blended cements, Cement and Concrete Composites, 37, 3, pp. 171-184, (2013)
[4] JUENGER M C G, WINNEFELD F, PROVIS J L, Et al., Advances in alternative cementitious binders, Cement and Concrete Research, 41, 12, pp. 1232-1243, (2011)
[5] SHI C J, FERNANDEZ-JIMENEZ A, PALOMO A., New cements for the 21st century:the pursuit of an alternative to Portland cement, Cement and Concrete Research, 41, 7, pp. 750-763, (2011)
[6] TENNAKOON C, SHAYAN A, SANJAYAN J G, Et al., Chloride ingress and steel corrosion in geopolymer concrete based on long term tests, Materials and Design, 116, pp. 287-299, (2017)
[7] BAKHAREV T., Resistance of geopolymer materials to acid attack, Cement and Concrete Research, 32, 4, pp. 658-670, (2005)
[8] BAKHAREV T., Durability of geopolymer materials in sodium and magnesium sulfate solutions, Cement and Concrete Research, 35, 6, pp. 1233-1246, (2005)
[9] ZHUANG X Y, CHEN L, KOMARNENI S, Et al., Fly ash-based geopolymer:clean production,properties and applications, Journal of Cleaner Production, 125, pp. 253-267, (2016)
[10] ZHANG J, SHI C J, ZHANG Z H, Et al., Durability of alkali-activated materials in aggressive environments:a review on recent studies, Construction and Building Materials, 152, 2, pp. 598-613, (2017)

← 1 2 3 →