4.6 Article

Research on Damage and Deterioration of Fiber Concrete under Acid Rain Environment Based on GM(1,1)-Markov

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 14, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma14216326

关键词

fiber concrete; acid rain corrosion; damage deterioration; GM(1,1)-Markov

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51868044,52178216]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study conducted 200 cycles of acid rain corrosion tests on fiber concrete, using steel fiber and basalt fiber volume dosing as variation parameters. The results showed that incorporating fibers can significantly improve the resistance to acid rain attack by reducing corrosion products and harmful pores, while optimizing the mean pore-size. Concrete with 2% steel fiber and 0.1% basalt fiber showed the least change in durability damage and had a predicted service life of 322 days.
With steel fiber and basalt fiber volume dosing serving as variation parameters, a total of 200 d cycles of acid rain corrosion cycle tests were conducted on fiber concrete in this study. We selected three durability evaluation parameters to assess the degree of damage deterioration on fiber concrete, used scanning electron microscopy, mercury intrusion porosimetry, and a dimensional microhardness meter to analyze the concrete micromorphology, and established a GM(1,1)-Markov model for life prediction of its durability. Results reveal that the acid rain environment is the most sensitive to the influence of the relative dynamic elastic modulus evaluation parameter, and concrete has specimens that show failure damage under this parameter evaluation. Incorporation of fibers can reduce the amount of corrosion products inside the concrete, decrease the proportion of harmful pores, optimize the mean pore-size, and significantly improve the resistance to acid rain attack. Concrete with 2% steel fiber and 0.1% basalt fiber by volume has the least change in durability damage, and the predicted service life by GM(1,1)-Markov model is 322 d.

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