4.1 Article

Application of Low-Field NMR to the Pore Structure of Concrete

Journal

APPLIED MAGNETIC RESONANCE
Volume 52, Issue 1, Pages 15-31

Publisher

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00723-020-01229-7

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Key Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2015CB655101]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study used LF-NMR measurements and MIP to evaluate the influence of water-binder ratio, fly ash replacement, and curing regimes on the pore structure of concrete, showing significant effects on porosity, pore size distribution, and compressive strength. The relationship between compressive strength and porosity, pore size distribution was established based on LF-NMR test results.
In the present study, we used low-field nuclear magnetic resonance (LF-NMR) measurements and mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) to evaluate the influence of the water-binder (w/b) ratio, fly ash (FA) replacement and curing regimes on the pore structure of concrete. The main advantage of LF-NMR is that it is nondestructive and suitable for large concrete samples compared with other traditional methods, such as MIP, adsorption methods and scanning electron microscopy methods. Hence, the LF-NMR relaxometry method measures the pore structures that are closer to reality. The LF-NMR relaxation time,T-2, represents the change in the pore structure during the hydration and hardening processes of concrete. The results showed that theT(2)spectrum of the concrete sample was mainly composed of 3-5 signal peaks. Additionally, thew/bratio, FA replacement and the curing regimes have significant effects on theT(2)spectrum, porosity, and pore size distribution of concrete. In addition, the compressive strength of concrete has a close relationship with its pore structure. Based on the LF-NMR test results, the relationship between the compressive strength and the porosity, pore size distribution of concrete was established.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available