4.7 Article

Quantitative assessment of the influence of external magnetic field on clustering of nano-Fe3O4 particles in cementitious paste

期刊

CEMENT AND CONCRETE RESEARCH
卷 142, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2020.106345

关键词

Active rheology control (ARC); Cement paste; Fe-element distribution; Magnetic field; Nano-Fe3O4 particles

资金

  1. ERC Advanced Grant project 'SmartCast'
  2. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program [693755]
  3. ERC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study experimentally validated the clustering of nano-Fe3O4 particles in cementitious paste under magnetic fields, quantifying the Fe-element patterns using COV values. The linear relationship between the magneto-rheological effect of cementitious pastes and the relative change of COV provided quantitative validation of magnetic clustering.
In view of active rheology control of cementitious materials, nano-Fe3O4 can be added as responsive particles. Following the concept of magnetorheological fluids, it is assumed that magnetic nanoparticles will form chains or clusters in cementitious paste following magnetic field lines. A quantitative experimental validation of this assumption is presented herein. The clustering of nano-Fe3O4 particles under magnetic fields is studied by mapping iron (Fe) element distribution in cementitious paste using energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. By means of image analysis, the Fe-element patterns are quantified by the deviation of Fe-elements in a unit area from the mean value expected in case of a uniform distribution, as expressed by coefficient of variation (COV). The magneto-rheological responses of cementitious pastes are evaluated using small amplitude oscillatory shear technique. Results show that the magneto-rheological effect exhibits a linear relationship with the relative change of COV, providing a quantitative validation of magnetic clustering in cementitious paste.

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