4.7 Article

Design of pH-responsive SAP polymer for pore solution chemistry regulation and crack sealing in cementitious materials

期刊

COMPOSITES PART B-ENGINEERING
卷 199, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108262

关键词

SAP; pH sensitivity; Swelling potential; Crack sealing

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council [201406370141]
  2. National Institutes of Health [R15GM104846]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The crack development is considered to be one of the most severe threats to the durability of concrete infrastructure. This study aims to enhance the durability performance of cementitious material with the pH-responsive Superabsorbent Polymer (SAP). The SAP was synthesized with acrylic acid (AA)-methyl acrylate (MA) precursors, and three type samples with different crosslinking levels were prepared. The examination on the pH sensitivity indicated that the swelling capacity of the prepared SAP would first increase and then decrease with solution alkalinity, and the peak swelling potential was achieved around pH value of 12 for all the three type SAP with solution/gel mass ratio of 500. Further examination indicated the alkalinity of the buffer solution was reduced during the adsorption test, which can be caused by the hydrolysis of the amide groups and the crosslinker. Besides that, it was also found the solution/gel ratio and the Ca(OH)(2) content could affect the swelling potential of the SAP. After that, the performance tests were conducted for the evaluation of concrete with SAP. A wax-coating protocol for the SAP was designed by using the hot-water method to prevent its swelling during mixing process. It was found that the strength reduction for samples with wax-coated SAP was insignificant compared to that of the control samples. Furthermore, durability tests supported the wax-shell could be broken by the crack propagation in concrete. And further experimental studies are needed to optimize the waxsize and shell thickness for enhanced self-sealing efficiency.

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