4.7 Article

Sulfate resistance testing of shotcrete - Sample preparation in the field and under laboratory conditions

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 276, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.122233

关键词

Sprayed concrete; Shotcrete; Sample preparation; Sulfate resistance; Hydrate assemblage

资金

  1. Federal Roads Office FEDRO [AGT 2014/009]
  2. Association of the Swiss cement industry cemsuisse [201505]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sulfate-resisting cement is recommended for shotcrete in contact with sulfate-containing groundwater, but it may not guarantee sufficient durability. Testing sulfate resistance in accelerated tests is necessary, and laboratory-produced samples showed similar properties to on-site shotcrete in terms of sulfate resistance, porosity, transport properties, and chemical phase assemblage.
When shotcrete is in contact with sulfate containing ground water, there is a risk of a drastically reduced service life. In this case, the use of sulfate-resisting cement is recommended. Since physical characteristics of the cement matrix of shotcrete differ from conventional concrete, sulfate-resisting cements do not always guarantee sufficient shotcrete durability. Thus, testing of the sulfate resistance in accelerated tests is necessary. Providing test samples from on-site (real) shotcrete is time consuming and demanding. In this study, the sulfate resistance and physical properties such as compressive strength and transport properties of samples produced in the laboratory without spraying are compared to the properties of field samples. A new compaction method is proposed, which is apt to allow high accelerator dosages. For different alkali-free set-accelerators and cement types, the laboratory-produced samples not only reveal similar sulfate resistance test results as on-site shotcrete, but also exhibit comparable porosity, transport properties and chemical phase assemblage. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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