4.6 Article

Report of TC 238-SCM: hydration stoppage methods for phase assemblage studies of blended cements-results of a round robin test

期刊

MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES
卷 51, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1617/s11527-018-1237-5

关键词

Supplementary cementitious materials; Hydration stoppage; Round robin test; Protocol; Blended cement; Hydration products

资金

  1. Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For many microstructural studies it is necessary to stop cement hydration-to remove free water. This paper describes the results of a round robin test on the impact of hydration stoppage methods on the composition of hydrated cements. A regular and a fly ash blended Portland cement hydrated for 90 days were selected. Ten laboratories participated in the round robin test. Four common hydration stoppage methods were studied: (1) oven drying at 105 degrees C, (2) solvent exchange by isopropanol, (3) vacuum drying and (4) freeze drying. After the stoppage of hydration powder samples were studied by thermogravimetry (TG) and X-ray diffraction (XRD). Bound water and Ca(OH)(2) content were determined based on the TG data. Portlandite and ettringite content were quantified by Rietveld analysis of the XRD data. The goal was to establish interlaboratory reproducibility and to identify the best available protocols for research and standardization purposes. Based on the results of the round robin test three recommendations are made. (1) Oven drying at 105 degrees C is not recommended. This dehydrates, alters and decomposes calcium aluminate hydrates significantly more than other methods and often produced carbonation artefacts. (2) Isopropanol exchange is the most appropriate hydration stoppage method for the study of the complete hydrate assemblage of cements, including calcium aluminate hydrates such as ettringite and AFm phases. (3) For quantification of portlandite (Ca(OH)(2)) all tested hydration stoppage protocols are satisfactory, with the exception of oven drying.

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

4.6
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