4.7 Article

An accelerator prepared from waste concrete recycled powder and its effect on hydration of cement-based materials

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 296, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123767

关键词

Waste concrete recycled powder (RP); Accelerator; Hydration kinetics; Wet grinding; Nucleation effect; Cement

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51978544]
  2. Major Technical Innovation Project in Hubei Province of China [2020BCA077]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Submicron RP obtained by wet grinding can be used as an accelerator in cementitious systems to significantly improve compressive strength, hydration heat, hydration products, and microstructure. This study provides a novel approach for utilizing RP in precast engineering.
Utilization of waste concrete recycled powder (RP) in cementitious materials faced enormous challenge, because of low activity and huge water demand. In this paper, RP was treated by wet grinding to prepare submicron-RP (SRP), and then SRP was used as an accelerator in various cementitious systems, including Portland cement system (PC), PC-granulated blast furnace slag (PC-GBFS), and PC-fly ash (PC-FA) system. The compressive strength, hydration heat, hydration products, and microstructure of these systems were studied. Results showed that SRP with an average diameter of 594 nm was obtained by wet grinding. In PC paste, at the age of 12 h, 6% SRP could augment the compressive strength by 150% and hydration heat by 100%, in comparison with the paste without SRP; in PC-GGBS or PC-FA system, the similar results were also found. The reason was because of the excellent nucleation effect to significantly facilitate the hydration of PC and promote the formation of hydrates; moreover, due to the filling effect of SRP, the microstructure of hardened pastes was refined. The research could provide a novel approach for the utilization of RP in precast engineering. (c) 2021 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