4.7 Article

Surface area development of Portland cement paste during hydration: Direct comparison with 1H NMR relaxometry and water vapor/nitrogen sorption

期刊

CEMENT AND CONCRETE RESEARCH
卷 157, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2022.106805

关键词

Hydration (A); Calcium-Silicate-Hydrate (C-S-H) (B); Surface area (B); 1H nuclear magnetic resonance relaxometry (B); Cement paste (D)

资金

  1. JSPS-KAKENHI [18H03804]
  2. Japan Concrete Aging Management Program on Irradiation Effects (JCAMP) - Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) in Japan [17J11519]
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [18H03804, 17J11519] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The specific surface areas of sealed-cured hardened cement pastes (HCP) were evaluated using three types of Portland cement and two different water-to-cement ratios. The results showed that the total surface area measured by 1H NMR was consistently 2-2.5 times larger than that measured by water vapor BET. This difference is attributed to the local stacking of C-S-H layers.
The specific surface areas of sealed-cured hardened cement pastes (HCP) were evaluated during the hydration process using three types of Portland cement and with two different water-to-cement ratios. The BET surface area was measured by water vapor/nitrogen sorption and directly compared with that obtained by the fast exchange model measured by 1H NMR relaxometry. The results confirmed that the total surface area evaluated by 1H NMR was consistently 2-2.5 times larger than the water vapor BET surface area for different HCPs. This difference is attributed to the local stacking of C-S-H layers: the surface between adjacent stacked layers is not measurable by water vapor due to the nature of the pre-treatment, while 1H NMR is able to measure the entire interlayer surface. The nitrogen surface area is better able to include the majority of the HCP gel pore surface by 1H NMR for white and high-early-strength Portland cement.

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