4.6 Article

Experimental study on the properties of polyvinyl alcohol fiber reinforced cementitious composites with super early strength

期刊

MATERIALS LETTERS
卷 330, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.matlet.2022.133264

关键词

Composite materials; Super early strength; Hydration heat; Mechanical property; Microstructure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new type of PVA fiber reinforced cementitious composites (RCC) with super early strength was proposed. The effects of retarder, water-binder ratio (w/b), and PVA fiber on the hydration heat and mechanical properties of the composites were studied. The results showed that the retarder content influenced the hydration heat rate, while the superplasticizer affected both the heat rate and total hydration heat. The w/b ratio had a negative impact on the compressive and flexural strength. The retarder had a detrimental effect on early strength but little influence on later strength, while PVA fibers had minimal effect on the mechanical properties within a reasonable range.
A new type of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fiber reinforced cementitious composites (RCC) was proposed with super early strength. The hydration heat of the PVA-RCC with various contents of retarder and superplasticizer was studied. The effects of retarder, water-binder ratio (w/b) and PVA fiber on the mechanical properties of the composites were investigated as well. The experimental results showed that the peak hydration heat rate increased with the increase in the retarder content, whereas the total hydration heat decreased. The superplasticizer boosted both the peak hydration heat rate and the total hydration heat. The compressive and flexural strength of the composites declined as the w/b increased. The retarder had a detrimental effect on the early strength but a little influence on the later strength. The PVA fibers had little effect on the mechanical properties of the composites, and the micromorphology revealed that there was a reasonable range of the PVA fibers content.

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

4.6
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