4.7 Article

Quantitative study of hydration of C3S and C2S by thermal analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF THERMAL ANALYSIS AND CALORIMETRY
卷 102, 期 3, 页码 965-973

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10973-010-0816-7

关键词

C-S-H gel; Chemical composition; Thermal analysis; C3S; C2S

资金

  1. EU [NMP3-SL-2008-214030]
  2. Spanish National Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research is part of a European project (namely, CODICE project), main objective of which is modelling, at a multi-scale, the evolution of the mechanical performance of non-degraded and degraded cementitious matrices. For that, a series of experiments were planned with pure synthetic tri-calcium silicate (C3S) and bi-calcium silicate (C2S) (main components of the Portland cement clinker) to obtain different calcium-silicate-hydrate (C-S-H) gel structures during their hydration. The characterization of those C-S-H gels and matrices will provide experimental parameters for the validation of the multi-scale modelling scheme proposed. In this article, a quantitative method, based on thermal analyses, has been used for the determination of the chemical composition of the C-S-H gel together with the degree of hydration and quantitative evolution of all the components of the pastes. Besides, the microstructure and type of silicate tetrahedron and mean chain length (MCL) were studied by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and Si-29 magic-angle-spinning (MAS) NMR, respectively. The main results showed that the chemical compositions for the C-S-H gels have a CaO/SiO2 M ratio almost constant of 1.7 for both C3S and C2S compounds. Small differences were found in the gel water content: the H2O/SiO2 M ratio ranged from 2.9 +/- A 0.2 to 2.6 +/- A 0.2 for the C3S (decrease) and from 2.4 +/- A 0.2 to 3.2 +/- A 0.2 for the C2S (increase). The MCL values of the C-S-H gels, determined from Si-29 MAS NMR, were 3.5 and 4 silicate tetrahedron, for the hydrated C3S and C2S, respectively, remaining almost constant at all hydration periods.

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