4.7 Article

Reaction mechanism of sulfate attack on alkali-activated slag/fly ash cements

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 318, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.126052

关键词

Alkali-activated cements; Sulfate attack; Slag; Fly ash; Activators

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [51638008, 51878263]
  2. Science and Technology Project of Guangzhou Water Affairs in 2021
  3. Fund of National Dam Safety Research Center [CX2019B14]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study elucidated the effects of slag/fly ash ratios, Na2O concentration, and silicate modulus on the reaction mechanism of sulfate attack on alkali-activated slag/fly ash cements using XRD, FTIR, and TG/DTG analysis. The results showed that MgSO4 attack on AACs was severe due to alkali dissolution and Mg2+ intrusion, whereas Na2SO4 attack did not significantly alter the C-A-S-H gel structures of AACs. Additionally, the resistance of NaOH-activated slag to MgSO4 was higher compared to Na2SiO3-activated slag, but this trend reversed with an 80% fly ash replacement level.
In this work, the effects of slag/fly ash ratios, Na2O concentration, and silicate modulus (Ms) of activators on the reaction mechanism of sulfate attack on alkali-activated slag/fly ash cements are elucidated by XRD, FTIR, and TG/DTG analysis. To accelerate the sulfate attack process, the alkali-activated cements (AACs) were crushed into particle samples before immersion in the Na2SO4 and MgSO4 solutions. The results show that upon the Na2SO4 attack, the C-A-S-H gel structures of AACs do not change basically. However, the MgSO4 attack on AACs is severe due to the dissolution of alkali and the intrusion of Mg2+. Gypsum is the main product in AACs upon the MgSO4 attack, and the amount of brucite decreases with the incorporation of fly ash. The NaOH-activated slag (Ms = 0) has a relatively higher MgSO4 resistance compared with the Na2SiO3-activated slag, while it is the opposite when the fly ash replacement level increases to 80%.

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