4.7 Article

3D-printable lightweight foamed concrete and comparison with classical foamed concrete in terms of fresh state properties and mechanical strength

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 254, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119271

关键词

Foamed concrete; 3D printable foamed concrete; Lightweight concrete; Extrusion test; Fresh state properties; 3D printing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a novel type of foamed concrete that is termed 3D-printable lightweight foamed concrete (3DP-LWFC). Unlike classical lightweight foamed concrete (C-LWFC), this novel material is able to keep its shape at the fresh state due to enhanced consistency and viscosity. This peculiarity lends itself to being implemented in automated extrusion production process and 3D printing applications without the use of formwork, which is particularly convenient in the building industry. These unique fresh state properties of 3DP-LWFC are demonstrated through a specific extrusion test conceived and used in this experimental campaign, and highlighted by comparison with results related to C-LWFC. Despite the remarkably different behavior of the novel material at the fresh state, the mechanical strength of 3DP-LWFC is even slightly higher than C-LWFC. This is demonstrated through a wide experimental campaign focused on the compressive and flexural strength of 3DP-LWFC, which includes different dry densities, curing conditions, cement types, water/cement ratios. Additionally, the effect of the mixing conditions on the mechanical strength of 3DP-LWFC, in particular the rotational speed of the mixer during the preparation of the paste, is also analyzed and discussed. It is found that the increase of mixing intensity from 1200 rpm to 3000 rpm resulted in a considerable increase of mechanical strength values of 3DP-LWFC, up to more than 70% for the compressive strength and up to around 100% for the flexural strength. (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