4.6 Article

Influence of Curing Temperature on the Strength of a Metakaolin-Based Geopolymer

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 16, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma16237460

关键词

geopolymer; metakaolin; alkaline activation; curing temperature; mechanical strength; flexural strength; compressive strength; stress-strain behavior

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focuses on the development of a new family of geopolymers obtained by alkaline activation and aims to find a viable alternative to concrete. The research shows that curing temperatures below 30 degrees Celsius should be used to maintain the strength of metakaolin-based geopolymers.
The present work focuses on the further development of a new family of geopolymers obtained by the alkaline activation of a binder. The aim is to find a viable alternative to concrete that can be used in civil construction. Regarding the influence of the curing temperature on this type of mixture, the recommendations in the existing literature are different for fly ash, ground granulated blast-furnace slag, and metakaolin-based geopolymers. While for fly ash and slag, increasing the curing temperature above 60 degrees C is reported to be advantageous, for metakaolin geopolymers, the opposite is reported. In this context, the objective of this work is to evaluate the mechanical strength of several metakaolin-based geopolymer specimens subjected to different curing temperatures (10, 15, 20, 30, 40 and 50 degrees C). Furthermore, several stress-strain diagrams are also shown. Based on the results, we recommend using curing temperatures below 30 degrees C in order to avoid reducing the strength of metakaolin-based geopolymers. Curing at 50 degrees C, relative to room temperature, results in a reduction of more than 35% in flexural strength and a reduction of more than 60% in compressive strength. Regarding the behavior of the geopolymers, it was found that the strain, at the ultimate stress, is about 2 to 2.5 times the strain of an equivalent cement mortar.

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