4.7 Article

Influences of limestone powder on the resistance of concretes to the chloride ion penetration and sulfate attack

期刊

POWDER TECHNOLOGY
卷 338, 期 -, 页码 725-733

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2018.07.041

关键词

Limestone powder; Initial moist curing time; Compressive strength; Chloride ion penetration; Sulfate attack

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFC1503100]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Influences of limestone powder on the resistance of concretes to the chloride ion penetration and sulfate attack with a constant water/binder ratio and a constant 28-day compressive strength were studied. The sensitivity of the properties of concrete to the initial moist curing time was also explored. The results indicate that, under a constant water/binder ratio condition, the resistance to sulfate attack of concrete deteriorates with the increasing of limestone powder content, and the resistance to chloride ion penetration decreases when the replacement ratio of limestone powder is 24%. As the initial moist curing time declines, the reducing magnitude of the properties of concrete containing limestone powder is larger than that of plain cement concrete. Nevertheless, lowering the water/binder ratio of concrete containing limestone powder can significantly reduce the sensitivity of the properties of the concrete to the initial moist curing time. No matter how long the initial moist curing time is, replacing cement with 8% limestone powder can improve the resistance of concrete to sulfate attack. Concrete with up to 24% limestone powder addition can still obtain a resistance to chloride ion penetration and sulfate attack similar to plain cement concrete on the premise of a constant 28-day compressive strength. Moreover, it was found that both the crystallization of sodium sulfate and the formation of ettringite collectively result in the deterioration of concrete subjected to the sulfate solution. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. 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