4.6 Article

Effect of Competitive Adsorption between Polycarboxylate Superplasticizer and Hydroxypropylmethyl Cellulose on Rheology of Gypsum Paste

期刊

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002346

关键词

Fluidity; Polycarboxylate superplasticizer; Hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose; Rheological performance; Competitive adsorption; Combination

资金

  1. National Key RAMP
  2. D Program of China [2016YFC0700905-04]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51772227]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High-fluidity gypsum-based materials have been widely used in grouting materials, self-leveling floors, wall materials, and three-dimensional (3D) printing materials. High fluidity means excellent workability without any segregation and bleeding, and generally, this can be obtained with addition of both polycarboxylate superplasticizer (PCE) and hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose (HPMC). However, the interaction between these two additives in gypsum paste has not been completely understood until now. In order to obtain a deeper insight into this interaction, this paper investigates the rheological performance of the gypsum pastes in the presence of these two materials with different orders of addition and discusses the adsorption behavior of these organic materials and the hydration process of the gypsum at very early age. Dispersion models are proposed to explain the mechanisms behind the interaction. The results show that both HPMC and PCE can adsorb onto the surface of gypsum particles. HPMC can hinder the adsorption of PCE due to competitively adsorbing behavior, resulting in a negative effect on dispersion of PCE. Preferential addition of PCE can effectively reduce this negative effect, whereas the preferential addition of HPMC has a positive effect on enhancing the viscosity of gypsum slurry. These results can provide useful guidance for the preparation of high-fluidity gypsum paste in practical engineering. (c) 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.

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