4.7 Article

Chemical and mineralogical characterizations of a low-pH cementitious material designed for the disposal cell of the high-level radioactive waste (HLW)

期刊

CEMENT AND CONCRETE RESEARCH
卷 162, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2022.107013

关键词

Radioactive waste management; Low-pH cement; Calcium-silicate-hydrate (C-S-H); SEM and X-ray diffraction characterizations

资金

  1. Andra (Agence nationale pour la gestion des dechets radioactifs (French national agency for the management of radioactive waste)
  2. Conseil Regional du Nord-Pas de Calais
  3. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
  4. Institut National des Sciences de l'Univers (INSU, CNRS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents the chemical and mineralogical characterizations of a cementitious material and its behavior to temperature increase. The results show that the mineralogical composition of the material evolves during setting and heating, leading to the formation of new minerals.
This paper presents the chemical and mineralogical characterizations of a cementitious material and its behaviour to temperature increase in conditions close to those of radioactive waste storage. The formulation, based on a CEM III/C, silica fume, bentonite and hydrotalcite makes a low-pH cementitious grout with a low viscosity. Results show that the mineralogical composition of this material evolves during setting. Two years after setting, it is a macro porous geomaterial, composed of few C-(A)-S-H with a low C/S ratio (<0.4) formed from the blast furnace slags. It also contains well-crystallized ettringite, hydrotalcite, calcite and still non hydrated C2S. In contact with air, a substantial enrichment in calcite and gypsum is observed. The heating up to 90 degrees C leads to the transformation of the Na-rich smectite of the bentonite into a Ca and/or Mg-rich one and the formation of opal -CT, vaterite and aragonite. Hydrotalcite is stable whereas gypsum and anhydrite disappear.

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