4.7 Article

Insights into the properties and chloride binding capacity of β-hemihydrate in the presence of slag powder and white calcium aluminate cement

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 259, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119798

关键词

Hemihydrate gypsum; Granulated blast-furnace slag; Calcium aluminate cement; Chloride binding

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China, China [U1806222, 51678442, 51602126, 51632003, 51578412, 51478348, 51508404, 51878480, 51878479]
  2. National Key Research and Development, Plan of China [2018YFD1101003]
  3. Taishan Scholars Program
  4. Case-by-Case Project for Top Outstanding Talents of Jinan, China
  5. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Calcium chloride (CaCl2) as a common concomitant in flue-gas desulfurization gypsum has a great negative impact on gypsum-based construction materials. Chloride binding in the form of Friedel's salt in the gypsum-dominating system is of great significance, but the feasibility of this approach has not yet been systematically clarified. In this paper, granulated blast-furnace slag (GBFS) powder and white calcium aluminate cement (CAC) were used as the components to explore their roles on the properties and chloride binding capacity of beta-hemihydrate. Experimental results prove that CAC significantly improves compressive strength, water resistance, and chloride binding capacity of hardened paste. The XRD, DTG, SEM-EDS and thermodynamic modeling confirm that Friedel's salt forms in this system even at an early hydration time of 30 min. Mercury intrusion porosimetry and SEM results verify that the use of CAC decreases the volume of the pores in the 0.1-100 mu m range. Thermodynamic modeling outcomes are consistent with the experimental data helping to explain the hydration and evolutions of beta-hemihydrates in the presence of CaCl2, GBFS, and CAC at early hydration ages. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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