4.7 Article

Influence of a fine glass powder on cement hydration: Comparison to fly ash and modeling the degree of hydration

期刊

CEMENT AND CONCRETE RESEARCH
卷 38, 期 4, 页码 429-436

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.12.001

关键词

glass powder; fly ash (D); cement paste (D); alkalis (D); hydration (A); degree of hydration (B); non-evaporable water content

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reports the results of an investigation carried out to understand the influence of a fine glass powder on cement hydration. The pozzolanicity of the glass powder and a Class F fly ash for comparison was evaluated using strength activity index over a period of time, and a rapid electrical conductivity based method. Flame emission spectroscopy and electrical conductivity tests were used to quantify the alkali release from glass powder, and gain information on the rate of alkali release. It was found that the glass powder releases only a very small fraction of sodium ions into the solution. It was observed that the glass powder modified pastes show higher non-evaporable water contents than the plain paste and fly ash modified pastes, indicating that glass powder facilitates enhancement in cement hydration. An expression has been developed for the change in non-evaporable water content as a result of enhancement in cement hydration and the hydration of the cement replacement material. The efficiency of any cement replacement material with age in the paste system can be quantified using this parameter. Based on this parameter, a 5% cement replacement with glass powder was found to be effective at the chosen water-to-cementing materials ratio (w/cm), whereas at higher replacement levels, the dilution effect dominates. A model to predict the combined degree of hydration of cement pastes incorporating more than one cementing material is outlined. The measured and predicted combined degrees of hydration agree well. (C) 2008 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