4.6 Article

Prolonging the Durability of Maritime Constructions through a Sustainable and Salt-Resistant Cement Composite

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 16, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma16216876

关键词

seawater; sulfate attack; blended cement; compressive strength; chloride attack; combined water content CWC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research investigates the long-term resilience of an environmentally friendly cement blend in a corrosive seawater environment. The findings show that cement incorporating GGBFS exhibits high durability and can withstand challenges in marine environments.
This research investigates the long-term resilience of an environmentally friendly cement blend comprising Egyptian Ordinary Portland Cement OPC and Ground-Granulated Blast Furnace Slag GGBFS when exposed to a corrosive seawater environment. This scientific investigation explores the effects of exposure to seawater on various properties of cement pastes, encompassing parameters such as free lime content (FLC), chemically combined water content (CWC), bulk density (BD), total porosity (phi), total sulfate content, total chloride content, and compressive strength (CS). By contrast, Differential Thermal Analysis (DTA), FT-IR spectroscopy, and X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis can be utilized to investigate the influence of exposure to seawater on the hydration products of GGBFS cement pastes over a period of up to one year. This analytical approach offers valuable insights into the alterations that occur in hydration products and their resilience when subjected to seawater conditions. The results obtained from this investigation reveal that all cement pastes incorporating GGBFS exhibit heightened resistance to deterioration in seawater, with slag cement containing 60 wt. % GGBFS and achieving a notable compressive strength of 85.7 Mpa after one year of immersion in seawater. These findings underscore the capacity of these cement blends to effectively withstand challenges in durability in marine environments.

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