4.7 Article

Durability of slag mortar reinforced with coconut fibre

期刊

CEMENT & CONCRETE COMPOSITES
卷 27, 期 5, 页码 565-574

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2004.09.007

关键词

cement composites; vegetable fibres; blast-furnace slag; durability; lignin; coir fibres

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A comparative study of the microstructure of both new and in-use aged blast-furnace slag cement coir reinforced composite was performed. Aged samples came from internal and external walls of a 12-year-old house, built in Sao Paulo. The panels of the house were produced using 1:1.5:0.504 (binder: sand: water, by mass) mortar reinforced with 2% of coir fibre by Volume. The binder was blast-furnace slag activated by 2% of lime and 10% of gypsum. Fibres were removed from the composite and Subsequently cleaned with acid solution (chloridric acid, 10%) in an ultrasonic bath. Both aged and new fibres were studied under low pressure BSE SEM with EDS analysis. The lignin content of the fibre was measured by the acetyl bromide method and qualitatively evaluated by Weisner reaction using an optical microscope. Cement transformations were Studied by X-ray diffraction and TG. Its pore water composition was also determined. Carbonation was measured by phenolphthalein. Composites were Studied under low vacuum SEM. Interfaces and deposition of inorganic species in the fibre lumen were also investigated. Methods are described. After 12 years, the cement was fully carbonated. Fibres removed from the old samples seem to be undamaged when examined under SEM. Qualitative lignin content determination by Wiesner reaction suggests that old samples have lower content of guaiacyl lignin units. Nevertheless. the total lignin content of old fibres when measured by using the acetyl bromide method, is comparable to that reported in literature. No significant difference was found in the lignin content of fibres removed from external and those removed from internal wails. (c) 2004 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

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