4.7 Article

Influence of curing temperature on the hydration and strength development of Class G Portland cement

期刊

CEMENT AND CONCRETE RESEARCH
卷 156, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2022.106776

关键词

Degree of hydration; Activation energy; Non-evaporable water content; X-ray diffraction; Ultrasonic

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51974352]
  2. China University of Petroleum (East China) [2018000025, 2019000011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The experimental program investigated the hydration and strength development of Class G oil well cement under various curing temperatures. Results showed linear relationships between heat of hydration, non-evaporable water content, and degree of hydration, largely independent of curing temperature. Curing temperature influences hydration and strength development rates, which can be modeled using an equivalent age method.
A broad experimental program has been performed to characterize the hydration and strength development of a Class G oil well cement under various curing temperatures from 15 to 87 degrees C. The progress of hydration was monitored by isothermal calorimetry, thermo-gravimetric analysis, and quantitative X-ray diffraction based on Rietveld refinement; while the strength development was evaluated by both nondestructive ultrasonic tests and destructive crush tests. Test results indicate that heat of hydration, non-evaporable water content and degree of hydration of the cement follow approximately linear relationships, which are largely independent of curing temperature; the obtained proportionality constants agree well with those estimated by previously proposed empirical equations. The influences of curing temperature on the hydration rate and strength development rate can be modeled by an equivalent age method coupled with the Arrhenius law. The apparent activation energy obtained from hydration analysis was higher than that obtained from strength development analysis.

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