4.7 Article

Rheological behaviors of cement pastes with multi-layer graphene

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 269, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121327

关键词

Graphene; Rheology; Cement paste; Adsorption; Lubrication

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [51978127, 51908103]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study systematically investigated the effect of multi-layer graphene (MLG) on the rheological behaviors of cement paste. With the increasing MLG content, the yield stress and minimum viscosity of cement paste showed an overall upward trend due to the competition between adsorption and lubrication effects of MLG. The water adsorption and lubrication effect of MLG on the rheological behaviors of cement paste have opposite mechanisms and depend on the MLG content.
In this study, the effect of multi-layer graphene (MLG) on the rheological behaviors of cement paste was systematically investigated. The yield stress and minimum viscosity of cement paste with MLG under different MLG contents, superplasticizer (SP) contents and water/cement (w/c) ratios were measured and compared. Based on adsorption and lubrication effects of MLG, the mechanisms of MLG on the rheological behaviors of cement paste were explained, and a prediction model of the minimum viscosity of cement paste with MLG was established. Results showed that with the increasing MLG content, the yield stress and minimum viscosity of cement paste fluctuated with an overall upward trend, which results from the competition between adsorption and lubrication effects of MLG. The water adsorption and lubrication effect of MLG have opposite mechanisms on the rheological behaviors of cement paste by affecting the internal force of cement paste and both highly depend on the MLG content. The accuracy of the proposed model of the minimum viscosity of cement paste with MLG was highly improved than the classical viscosity prediction models. (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