4.7 Article

The influence of bagasse fibre and fly ash on the long-term properties of green cementitious composites

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 111, 期 -, 页码 237-250

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.103

关键词

Bagasse fibre; Cementitious composites; Fly ash; Long-term; Mechanical properties; Steel fibre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Both the long-term physical and mechanical properties of new green cementitious composites reinforced with bagasse fibre and steel fibre with ultra high volume of fly ash are investigated in this paper. Newly cast specimens were cured in the lab for the first 28 days, then these specimens were moved outside to be cured in weather conditions for up to 10 months. The physical properties (including bulk density, apparent porosity and water absorption), mechanical properties (such as compressive strength, Young's modulus and modulus of rupture) are investigated experimentally at the age of 28 days, 3 months, 6 months and 10 months. SEM tests are also conducted to study the microstructure of the new composites. Through comparison with the mechanical behaviour of the composites at the age of 28 days, the long-term effect on the physical and mechanical properties of the composites are discussed, and the impact of fly ash content and bagasse fibre content on the composites under the weathering conditions are also analysed. The experimental results show that the compressive strength, Young's modulus, modulus of rupture and tensile strength of the composites decrease with the reduction of the content of fly ash and bagasse fibre, but bending toughness of the material increases with fly ash content and peaks as fly ash to cement ratio achieves 2.0. The mechanical properties of the new composites are found to be comparable to those of conventional concrete and they are very promising green and sustainable construction and building materials for the next generation infrastructures. (c) 2016 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