4.7 Article

Comparative study of PCE superplasticizers with different anchoring groups in low water-to-binder ratio cementitious material

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 312, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125344

关键词

Anchoring groups; Low water-to-binder ratio; Rheological behavior; Adsorption properties

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology [2018YFC0705400]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study reveals that the density and configuration of anchoring groups in Polycarboxylate Ether (PCE) superplasticizers significantly influence their adsorption behavior and dispersibility in cementitious pastes. Specifically, FA-PCE with a large specific charge density shows excellent flowability and rheological properties in cementitious pastes.
Polycarboxylate ether (PCE) superplasticizers with three different anchoring groups were synthesized by copolymerizing allyl polyoxyethylene ether with trans-butadiene (FA), cis-butenedioic anhydride (MAH), and itaconic acid (IA), respectively. The interactions between PCEs and cementitious materials were revealed by adsorption properties, Ca2+ binding capacity of PCE, and zeta-potential of paste. The effects of anchoring groups in PCEs on the flowability and rheological properties of cementitious pastes were studied. Results indicated that the density and local configuration of -COO- groups in PCEs significantly affect their adsorption behavior and dispersibility in cementitious pastes. Most of the -COO- groups are isolated on the backbone of FA-PCE, while for the MAH-PCE, only pairs of -COO- groups present the backbone. All the -COO- groups directly connect to the main chains in FA- and MAH- PCEs, whereas half of the -COO- groups in IA-PCE indirectly connect to the main chains through hydrophobic methylene, which has a potential to curl and reduce its accessible -COO- groups. FA-PCE with a large specific charge density exhibit excellent flowability and rheological properties in cementitious pastes.

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