4.7 Article

Effect of partial substitution of cement with Dolomite powder on Glass-Fiber-Reinforced mortar

Journal

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
Volume 344, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.128201

Keywords

Dolomite powder; Glass-fiber-reinforced mortar; Mechanical properties; Durability

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41440018, 41672278]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the possibility of recycling waste dolomite powder (DP) to improve the mechanical properties and durability of glass-fiber-reinforced mortar (GFRM). The results showed that adding DP improved fluidity, strength, and durability of GFRM, and protected glass fibers against corrosion.
Glass fibers are susceptible to corrosion in alkaline environments, which reduces the strength and durability of Glass-fiber-reinforced cementitious composites (GFRCs) and limits their application. In this study, the possibility of recycling waste dolomite powder (DP) and improving the mechanical properties and durability of glass-fiber-reinforced mortar (GFRM) by substituting a certain amount of cement with DP was investigated. An experimental study was conducted to evaluate the effects of the DP content (0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%) on the fluidity, compressive strength, flexural strength, water absorption rate, drying shrinkage, and microstructure of GFRM. The results showed that adding DP in GFRM improved fluidity, the long-term strength and durability of GFRM, and reduced the chloride ion electric flux, the alkalinity of the pore solution and drying shrinkage of GFRM, and protected the glass fibers against corrosion by calcium hydroxide solution. The optimal DP content was 10%. Incorporating DP in GFRCs is conducive to improving the performance of GFRCs, recycling waste DP and environmental friendliness by reducing cement consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available