4.4 Article

Influences of CO2-cured cement powders on hydration of cement paste

期刊

GREENHOUSE GASES-SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 249-262

出版社

WILEY PERIODICALS, INC
DOI: 10.1002/ghg.2141

关键词

carbon storage; carbonated cement paste; compressive strength; microstructural analysis

资金

  1. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation [LY22E080001]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Solid Waste Reuse for Building Materials [SWR-2021-004]
  3. British Council, UKIERI-DST [IND/CONT/GA/18-19/24]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbonated cement pastes (CCP) were investigated as supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs)-like components in ordinary Portland cement (OPC) paste. The results showed that the CO2 sequestration level of CCP increased with the growth of CO2 pressure. However, the use of CCP as a replacement led to higher water demand and inferior workability and compressive strength compared to the control group.
Carbonated cement pastes (CCP) can be used as stable carbon storage. In this work, CCP were systematically investigated as supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs)-like components used in ordinary Portland cement (OPC) paste. The fully hydrated cement pastes were pulverized into powders and then exposed to different CO2 pressure conditions (i.e., 1.0, 2.0 and 2.5 MPa) for 24 h. These CCP powders were then mixed with OPC to form a new binder. Various fresh, hardened and microstructural properties of CCP powders and the mixtures were investigated. Initial results show that the CO2 sequestration level of CCP increased with the growth of CO2 pressure, and albeit a pozzolanic reaction occurred inside the mixture, the relatively higher water demand due to the use of 30% replacement of CCP led to the inferior workability and compressive strength than the control group. Finally, a conceptual model relating to the CCP-OPC paste was proposed, facilitating the comprehension of the hydration behaviours of CCP-OPC paste. (c) 2022 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.4
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