4.7 Article

Strain hardening magnesium-silicate-hydrate composites with extremely low fiber dosage of 0.5% by volume

期刊

CEMENT & CONCRETE COMPOSITES
卷 142, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2023.105200

关键词

SHCC; ECC; MSH; MgO; Low fiber dosage; Micromechanics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study develops a strain hardening magnesiumsilicate-hydrate composite with an extremely low fiber volume fraction of 0.5% using a micromechanics-guided design approach. The composite exhibits a tensile strain capacity of 7.2%, a tensile strength of 2.24 MPa, and a compressive strength of 86.1 MPa. The fiber/matrix interfacial bond is characterized, and the micromechanics-based assessment of critical fiber volume fraction is conducted. The sustainability and potential for further reducing embodied carbon and primary energy are evaluated and compared with Portland cement-based composites.
Formulation of strain hardening cementitious composites typically engage 2% or more fiber by volume, resulting in higher cost and difficult processing. This study presents the development of strain hardening magnesiumsilicate-hydrate composite with an extremely low fiber volume fraction of 0.5% via micromechanics-guided design approach. The developed composite demonstrated a tensile strain capacity of 7.2% with a tensile strength of 2.24 MPa, and a compressive strength of 86.1 MPa. The fiber/matrix interfacial bond was characterized using single fiber pullout test. The microstructural characterization of fiber surface and fiber tunnel in the matrix was carried out to understand the fiber/matrix interface properties. The micromechanics-based assessment of critical fiber volume fraction required to achieve strain hardening was also conducted. The material sustainability of the developed composite was evaluated and compared with existing Portland cement-based strain hardening cementitious composites, and strategies to further reduce embodied carbon and primary energy were proposed.

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