4.6 Article

Porous Structure of Ultra-High-Performance Fibre-Reinforced Concretes

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 14, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma14071637

关键词

ultra-high-performance fibre-reinforced concrete; porosity; water porosity; oxygen permeability

资金

  1. Ministerio de Economia Y Competitividad (Agencia Estatal de Investigacion) of the Spanish Government [BIA2016-78460-C3-3-R]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The experimental work studied the porous structure of Ultra-High-Performance Fibre-Reinforced Concretes (UH) with different fiber volumes and curing conditions, finding that UH concretes have a fine porous structure with significantly lower water accessibility compared to traditional and high-strength concretes.
The aim of this experimental work was to study the porous structure of Ultra-High-Performance Fibre-Reinforced Concretes (UH) made with different fibre volume contents (0%, 1%, 2%) under several curing conditions (laboratory environment, 20 degrees C, 60 degrees C, 90 degrees C), comparing the results with those recorded for ordinary, high strength and very high strength concretes. Scanning electron microscopy, mercury intrusion porosimetry, thermogravimetry, water absorption and oxygen permeability tests were carried out. The results showed a low portlandite content in UH (in the order of 75% lower than in concrete C50) and a low degree of hydration, but they rise with curing temperature. These concretes have a very fine porous structure, with a high concentration of pores on the nanoscale level, below 0.05 mu m. Their porosity accessible to water is consequently around 7-fold lower than in conventional (C30), 6-fold lower than in high-strength (C50) and 4-fold lower than in very high-strength (C90) concretes. Their oxygen permeability is at least one order of magnitude lower than in C90, two orders of magnitude lower than in C50 and three orders of magnitude lower than in C30. The percentage of added steel fibre does not affect the UH porous structure.

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

4.6
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