4.7 Article

Experimental study of magnesium phosphate cements modified by metakaolin

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 123, 期 -, 页码 719-726

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.092

关键词

Magnesium phosphate cement; Metakaolin; Setting time; Mechanical property; Microstructure

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51378309]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Magnesium phosphate cements have the characteristics of fast setting and high early strength, which have been extensively used as rapid repair materials in civil engineering. However, Magnesium Phosphate Cement (MPCs) were also reported to have the disadvantage of water instability and short setting time which was difficult to control. The present research was carried out to evaluate the properties of magnesium phosphate cement with high dosage of metakaolin (MK). Different contents of metakaolin were used to replace magnesium to prepare magnesium phosphate cement. The experimental results showed that the successive additions of MK led to a cumulative increase in setting time to a maximum of 52 min for the compositions investigated, and the intensity of the exothermic reactions was also reduced by MK. Moreover, the additions of MK also improved the strengths of the specimens greatly at the early age, and the compressive strength at 1 h can reach 65.7 MPa. Meanwhile, the water resistance of MPC mortar was also investigated by the form of strength retention, and the results revealed that the addition of MK improved the water resistance after curing for 28 days and 56 days. The improvement mechanism was discussed based on the micro-analysis of XRD, SEM along with energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS). The phase analysis revealed the promotion effect of MK on the hydration of MPC, and confirmed the formation of a new gel. From the microstructural and compositional analyses, the gel was identified as aluminum phosphate (AlPO4), which increased the density of the cement. (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