4.7 Article

Effects of carbonation treatment on the properties of hydrated fly ash-MgO-Portland cement blends

Journal

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
Volume 96, Issue -, Pages 147-154

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.193

Keywords

MgO; Fly ash; Carbonation; CO2; Compressive strength

Funding

  1. Jiangsu Natural Science Fund [BK2012427]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51461135003]
  3. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Alternative cement formulations with low carbon emissions have attracted increasing attentions. In this study up to 90% of the Portland cement (PC) was replaced with reactive MgO and fly ash to prepare cement blends. Cement pastes were then prepared with the cement blends and cured with CO2 after 28d of hydration. The implication of carbonation on the compressive strengths as well as microstructures of the cement blends were investigated by using X-ray diffraction, thermogravimetric analysis, mercury intrusion porosimetry, and scanning electronic microscopy. Results showed that under moist curing condition, the replacements of PC with the reactive MgO and fly ash (FA) reduced the compressive strengths of cement blends. However, after the following treatment with pressurized CO2 (0.55 and 0.10 MPa) for different time (3 h, 15 h, 1 d or 14 d), the compressive strengths were increased significantly by up to 195%. This is attributed to the microstructure densification of cement blends in terms of pore diameter decrease, total pore volume reduction, and products conglomeration due to the formation of carbonate products, e.g. calcite, magnesium calcite, nesquehonite, etc.. Curing with higher pressure CO2 leads to faster strength development owing to more rapid penetration of CO2 and following carbonation of the cement blends. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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