4.7 Article

Evidence on the Dual Nature of Aluminum in the Calcium-Silicate-Hydrates Based on Atomistic Simulations

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CERAMIC SOCIETY
卷 95, 期 3, 页码 1128-1137

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-2916.2011.05058.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Concrete Sustainability Hub at MIT
  2. Portland Cement Association (PCA)
  3. RMC Research & Education Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydration of tri-calcium silicate (C3S) and di-calcium silicate (C2S) precipitates calcium-silicate-hydrate (CSH) which is the bonding phase responsible for the strength of cementitious materials. Substitution of part of C3S and C2S with aluminum-containing additives alters the chemical composition of hydration products by precipitating calcium-aluminate-silicate-hydrate (CASH). Incorporation of aluminum in the molecular building blocks of CSH entails structural and chemo-mechanical consequences. These alterations can be measured through solid state nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) experiments. By conducting a wide spectrum of atomistic simulation methods on thousands of aluminum-containing molecular CASH structures, an overall molecular approach for determination of CASH nanostructure is presented. Through detailed analysis of different order parameters, it is found that aluminum can exhibit a tetra-/penta-/octahedral behavior which is fully consistent with the recent NMR observations. This corresponds to the formation of a class of complex three-dimensional alumino-silicate skeletons with partial healing effect in the CASH nanostructure potentially increasing durability and strength of hydration products. We explored the variation of mechanical observables by increasing aluminum content in CASH structures of varying calcium to silicon ratio. Finally, deformation of CSHs and CASHs of different chemical formula in a multi-scale fashion unravels the effect of chemical composition on the strength and kinematics of deformation in this particular type of composites.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据