4.7 Article

Limestone fillers cement based composites: Effects of blast furnace slags on fresh and hardened properties

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 51, 期 -, 页码 439-445

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.10.076

关键词

Limestone; Filler; Chloride diffusion; Cement; Granulated blast furnace slags; Mortar; Water demand; Porosity; Oxygen permeability; Capillary suction

资金

  1. Belgium (Wallonia Brussels International) government
  2. Quebec government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Limestone filler is a raw material that is already used in several applications like paints, bricks, and bituminous mixtures. Moreover, and particularly in Belgium, classical additions for concrete like fly ashes and granulated blast furnace slags are becoming rare; there is a need for new additions that could have a positive effect on the properties of the fresh and hardened cementitous composites. Substitution of limestone filler in Portland cement and Granulated blast furnace slag cement has been realized between 15% and 27% in mass. In addition to the characterization of the powder itself - specific mass, specific surface and laser granulometry - the problem of the water demand has been analysed: it seems that it remains constant with the substitution rate. Electric conductivity has also been performed in order to study the evolution of the dormant period. Tests on hardened mortars were performed with regard to mechanical properties and evolution of the porosity. Test results indicate that the porosity seems to be finer in the case of granulated blast furnace slags cements, partially due to a very low diameter of the slags particles. Oxygen permeability does not seem to be influenced by the filler while capillary absorption increases with substitution rate. Finally, carbonation rate, sulphate resistance and chloride penetration show quite interesting behaviours, leading to the conclusion that limestone fillers maybe a good substitution material. (C) 2013 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