4.4 Article

Alkali-activated concretes based on high unburned carbon content fly ash: carbonation and corrosion performance

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/19648189.2020.1785948

关键词

Fly ash; ground blast furnace slag; Portland cement; alkali-activated concrete; carbonation; steel corrosion

资金

  1. [784]
  2. [SICOP CI 21032]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the carbonation behavior and corrosion behavior of alkali-activated fly ash-based (AFA) concrete. The research finds that AFA concrete is more susceptible to carbonation compared to ordinary concrete, and the corrosion behavior of reinforcing steel is also different.
This study investigates the carbonation behaviour of alkali-activated fly ash-based (AFA) concretes. AFA contains 20.67% of unburned carbon. GBFS and OPC were used as sources of calcium (20%). A mixture of NaOH and Na(2)SiO(3)was used as activator. OPC concrete was used as reference material. AFA/GBFS, AFA/OPC and OPC concretes, with and without reinforcing steel, were exposed to accelerated carbonation in a chamber under controlled conditions (25 degrees C, 65% RH, 1% CO2). In the non-reinforced concrete, the carbonation depth and compressive strength were evaluated up to 360 days. FTIR and SEM were used as complementary tests. Given that carbonation is one of the causes of corrosion in reinforcing steel, the electrochemical behaviour of steels embedded in alkali-activated concrete was evaluated using half-cell potential test, polarization curves and linear polarization resistance techniques. According to the obtained results, AFA/GBFS and AFA/OPC concretes are more susceptible to carbonation than OPC with compressive strength losses of up to 40%. Regarding the corrosion behaviour of the reinforcing steel, the AFA/GBFS concrete showed very negative potentials and high corrosion densities; however, at the end of the exposure period (20 months), the reinforcing steel showed no signs of deterioration, unlike the steel embedded in the OPC concrete.

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