3.8 Proceedings Paper

Effect of limestone fines as a partial replacement of cement on the chemical, autogenous, drying shrinkage and expansion of mortars

期刊

MATERIALS TODAY-PROCEEDINGS
卷 58, 期 -, 页码 1199-1204

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.01.336

关键词

Limestone fines; Chemical shrinkage; Drying shrinkage; Autogenous shrinkage; Expansion; Mortars

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the effect of incorporating different percentages of limestone fines on the shrinkage and expansion of mortar specimens. The results showed that adding up to 10% limestone fines enhanced the chemical and autogenous shrinkage of the mortar, but increased the drying shrinkage. These findings are important for optimizing mortar mixtures.
The use of limestone with its different applications in paste, mortar, and concrete has become a common practice, not only for the urge to control the environmental impact and conserving the virgin materials but also to improve their performance in different environment. This study focused on the effect of incorporating different percentage levels of limestone fines (LF) on the shrinkage and expansion development of mortar specimens for a total period of 28 days. To observe this effect, a total of 5 mortar mixes were employed with five substitution rate of cement with LF ranging from 0 to 20%. The ratios of water to binder and sand to binder remain constant at 0.45 and 2 respectively. Testing consisted of three types of length change; chemical, drying and autogenous shrinkage as well as expansion. It was observed that adding up to 10% LF enhanced the chemical and autogenous shrinkage of mortars. Likewise, incorporating up to 10% LF increased the expansion in mortar specimens. However, drying shrinkage of mortars increased as LF content went up. Overall, the results indicate that there is strong correlation between the chemical shrinkage and the other length change parameters and expansion. Copyright (C) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

3.8
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