4.4 Article

Experimental Study of the Pore Structure Deterioration of Sandstones under Freeze-Thaw Cycles and Chemical Erosion

期刊

ADVANCES IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
卷 2019, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2019/9687843

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41502327, 51474252, 51774323]
  2. National Major Scientific Instruments and Equipment Development Projects [2013YQ17046310]
  3. Open-End Fund for the Valuable and Precision Instruments of Central South University [CSUZC201801]
  4. China Scholarship Council [201706375077]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The issue of rock deterioration in chemical environments has drawn much attention in recent years in the rock engineering community. In this study, a series of 30 freeze-thaw cycling tests are conducted on sandstone samples soaked in H2SO4 solution and in pure water, prior to the application of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) on the rock specimens. The porosity of the sandstone, the distribution of transverse relaxation time T-2, and the NMR images are acquired after each freeze-thaw cycle. The pore size distribution curves of the sandstone after freeze-thaw cycles, four categories of pore scale, and the features of freeze-thaw deterioration for pores of different sizes in H2SO4 solution and pure water are established. The result shows that, with the influence of the acid environment and the freeze-thaw cycles, the mass of the samples largely deteriorates. As the freeze-thaw cycles increase, the porosity of rocks increases approximately linearly. The distribution of the NMR T-2 develops gradually from 4 peaks to 5 or even to 6. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) dynamically displays the process of the freeze-thaw deterioration of the microstructure inside the sandstones under acid conditions. The results also show pore expansion in rocks under the coupling effects of chemistry and the freeze-thaw cycles, which differ largely from the freeze-thaw deterioration of the rock specimens placed in pure water.

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

4.4
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