4.7 Article

Investigation on frost heaving stress (FHS) of porous cement concrete exposed to freeze-thaw cycles

期刊

COLD REGIONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 205, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.coldregions.2022.103694

关键词

Porous cement concrete; Frost heaving stress; Freeze -thaw; Air void content; Degree of water saturation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Frost Heaving Stress (FHS) is a main cause of freeze-thaw (FT) damage in porous cement concrete. A customized measurement device was used to study the influence of curing time, air void, saturation degree, and freeze-thaw cycles on FHS evolution. The results showed that FHS evolution can be divided into three stages, and the increase of saturation degree leads to the growth of FHS. FHS does not completely dissipate in the thawing process.
Frost Heaving Stress (FHS) is one of the main causes of freeze-thaw (FT) damage in porous cement concrete. This study customized a device for the measurement of FHS in the laboratory. Firstly, rodding, vibration, and static compaction methods were compared for the preparation of porous cement concrete in terms of the air void characteristics and air void distribution. Based on the proposed measurement device, the influence of curing time, air void, saturation degree, and freeze-thaw cycles on the FHS evolution were discussed, respectively. Besides, the release characteristics of FHS in the thawing process were also characterized. The results indicated that the evolution of FHS in the freezing process can be divided into three stages that accounted for the thermal contraction, phase transformation of water, and the end of phase transformation. The FHS of porous cement concrete can be reduced through the extension of curing or reduction of air void content. In general, the increase of saturation degree induced the growth of FHS. With respect to the release characteristics of FHS, the FHS would not completely dissipate and the remaining FHS would accumulate as the F-T cycle increased.

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