| Literature DB >> 31652559 |
Daniela Santos1, Rodrigo Lino Santos2,3, João Pereira4, Ricardo Bayão Horta5, Rogério Colaço6,7, Patrizia Paradiso8,9.
Abstract
A systematic investigation of the influence of pseudowollastonite on the performance of a new family of low calcium hydraulic binders is described. Samples of the new low calcium binder were produced by an innovative process consisting of heating and homogenizing the mix of raw materials (limestone, sand, and fuel cracking catalyst) at a constant temperature followed by the rapid cooling of the mixture itself. Different maximum temperatures, close to the melting temperature of the mix, were tested, and materials with CaO/SiO2 (C/S) ratios of 0.9, 1.1, and 1.25 were produced into the form of the amorphous phase with small percentages of pseudowollastonite. Compressive strength results were determined at 7, 28, and 90 days of hydration, and the hydrated phases were analyzed using isothermal calorimetry, X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis, thermogravimetry analysis (TGA), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The present work is focused on the influence of the percentage of the pseudowollastonite phase on the binder compressive strength performance.Entities:
Keywords: cement; decarbonation; hydraulic binders; pseudowollastonite
Year: 2019 PMID: 31652559 PMCID: PMC6829315 DOI: 10.3390/ma12203457
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Raw material composition and raw-mix combinations of the amorphous hydraulic binders with C/S molar ratios of 0.9, 1.1, and 1.25. The respective theoretical compositions of the amorphous material produced are presented in the bottom rows.
| C/S Molar Ratio | 1.1 | 1.25 | 0.9 | Composition (wt.%) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Limestone | 63.78 | 66.57 | 58.97 | 0.20 | 0.16 | 0.14 | 99.11 | 0.30 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 | - |
| Sand | 34.97 | 32.2 | 39.74 | 96.94 | 1.29 | 0.16 | - | 0.02 | - | 0.52 | 0.11 | - | - |
| FCC | 1.25 | 1.23 | 1.29 | 39.48 | 51.39 | 0.52 | 0.13 | 0.17 | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.48 | 0.81 | 0.22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| C/S 1.1 | 100 | - | - | 47.87 | 1.59 | 0.16 | 49.26 | 0.16 | 0.02 | 0.26 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
| C/S 1.25 | - | 100 | - | 44.97 | 1.56 | 0.16 | 52.39 | 0.17 | 0.02 | 0.25 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
| C/S 0.9 | - | - | 100 | 52.86 | 1.65 | 0.16 | 44.34 | 0.15 | 0.02 | 0.29 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
Sample nomenclature.
| Sample | C/S | Maximum Temperature (°C) |
|---|---|---|
| 0.9_1550 | 0.9 | 1550 |
| 1.1_1550 | 1.1 | 1550 |
| 1.1_1530 | 1.1 | 1530 |
| 1.1_1520 | 1.1 | 1520 |
| 1.25_1520 | 1.25 | 1520 |
| 1.25_1500 | 1.25 | 1500 |
| 1.25_1485 | 1.25 | 1485 |
Figure 1Rietveld analysis of samples C/S 1.1 (a) and C/S 1.25 (b) prepared at different clinkering temperatures, the percentages in weight of different phases (Note: P-Pseudowollastonite; T-Tobermorite, A-Amorphous; 1 The amorphous phase wt.% includes the anhydrous and the C–S–H) is shown.
Figure 2Heat flow and cumulative heat (normalized to the mass of binder powder) as a function of time of hydration: (a) C/S 1.1 Samples; (b) C/S 1.25 Samples.
Figure 3Compressive strength development of the pastes produced from samples C/S_1.1 and C/S_1.25. Note: water/binder = 0.375 in weight. (The error bars correspond to the maximum error associated with measurements).
Figure 4Evolution of the percentage of water incorporated in the structure of pastes produced as a function of hydration age. (The error bars correspond to the maximum error associated with measurements).
Figure 5SEM images of samples C/S 1.1 with 28 days of hydration: (a) 1.1_1550 at a magnification of 100×; (b) 1.1_1550 at a magnification of 5000×; (c) 1.1_1530 at a magnification of 5000×; (d) 1.1_1520 at a magnification of 5000×.
Figure 6Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) cooling thermograms of the set of samples C/S 1.1 and C/S 1.25 at 90 days of hydration.
Figure 7The plot of weight percentage of C–S–H formed versus the obtained compressive strength results in this work. In addition, plotted are other results of R. L. Santos et al. [10], Hoshino et al. [18]. and Kazuhiro et al. [19].
Figure 8Relationship between the compressive strength results and the C–S–H/Tobermorite weight ratio of samples C/S 1.1 and C/S 1.25.