| Literature DB >> 32414165 |
Jacek Gołaszewski1, Tomasz Ponikiewski1, Aleksandra Kostrzanowska-Siedlarz1, Patrycja Miera1.
Abstract
Due to the rational shaping of the environment and the management of environmental resources in accordance with the principle of sustainable development, calcareous fly <span class="Gene">ash (<span class="Chemical">CFA)-high-calcium as a by-product of lignite combustion-is a valuable addition to concrete. This additive, however, due to its high-water demand lowers the workability of the concrete mix, which is a problem, especially in the first 90 min after mixing the components of the mix. In order to meet this challenge, plasticizers (P) and superplasticizers (SP) for concrete are used with various effects which are designed to reduce the yield value and plastic viscosity. To check the technical efficiency of admixtures P and SP with different chemical bases, the main objective of this research was to investigate the influence of raw and ground CFA on the rheological properties and other side effects of admixtures, such as the amount of air in the mixture and the amount of heat of hydration. The use of P, particularly SP, effectively improves the workability of the mortar containing CFA, especially ground CFA. With these admixtures, it is possible to obtain mortars containing ground CFA with similar rheological properties to mortars without its addition. To obtain a specific workability of mortar with CFA, it is usually necessary to introduce a higher dose of P or SP than used for mortars without CFA. The presence of raw CFA does not alter the effectiveness of P and strongly reduces the effectiveness of SP. The reduced effectiveness of SP manifests primarily as a high workability lost. The presence of ground CFA does not change the effectiveness of P (or is higher). The effectiveness of the superplasticizer SNF (with a chemical base of naphthalene sulfonate) and PE (with a chemical base of polycarboxylate ether) is slightly lower or does not change. The effectiveness of the superplasticizer SMF (with a chemical base of melamine sulfonates) is significantly lower. We found that the presence of ash affects the efficiency of P and SP, while processing via the grinding of ash makes the effect negligible. These results are novel in both their cognitive and practical aspects.Entities:
Keywords: calcareous fly ash; cement mortars, workability; fly ash processing methods; plasticizer; rheological properties; superplasticizer
Year: 2020 PMID: 32414165 PMCID: PMC7287762 DOI: 10.3390/ma13102245
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Types, primary and secondary effects of plasticizers (P) and superplasticizers (SP) [24].
| Admixture | Type | Primary Effect | Secondary Effects-Side Effects |
|---|---|---|---|
| P |
lignosulfonates and its salts (Ca, Na, Mg, NH4); hydroxy-carboxylate acids and its salts (containing groups (OH), (COOH)). | Influence on rheological properties of cement mixtures enabling: increase in workability (fluidity) of mixture (constant w/b ratio) decrease in w/b ratio at given workability of cement mixture (enabling increase in compressive strength and durability of hardened cement composite) decrease in cement content at given fresh and hardened cement mixture properties |
influence on cement setting time influence on air content in mixture influence on heat of cement hydration |
| SP |
salts of sulfonated naphthalene formaldehyde polymers (SNF); salts of sulfonated melamine formaldehyde polymers; (SMF); polycarboxylate acrylic acids polymers and cross-linked polymers (PC and CLPC) polycarboxylate ethers polymers (PE); Rother substances in example modified lignosulfonates. |
Research plan—type of calcareous fly ash (CFA), w/b ratio, admixture dosage and tested properties.
| Type and Batches of Calcareous Fly Ash (CFA) | w/b Ratio | Symbol of Admixture | For Testing Rheological Properties | For Testing Air Content | For Testing Heat of Hydration | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw CFA: | 0.55 | P | P1 | 0, 0.25, 0.5% | 0, 0.25% | x |
| 0.55 | P2 | 0, 0.25, 0.5% | 0, 0.25% | 0, 0.25% | ||
| 0.55 | SP | SMF | 0, 0.6, 1.15, 2.3% | 0, 1.15% | 0, 1.15% | |
| 0.45 | SNF | 1.8, 2.4, 3.6% | 1.8% | 0, 1.8% | ||
| 0.45 | PE1 | 1.0, 1.25, 2.0, 2.5% | 1.25% | 0, 1.25% | ||
| 0.45 | PE2 | 0.5, 0.75, 1.0% | 0.5% | x | ||
Chemical composition of CFA.
| CFA | LOI | SiO2 | Al2O3 | Fe2O3 | CaO | SO3 | K2O | Na2O | CaOw | Bulk Density [kg/m3] | Fineness | Blaine Specific Surface [ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw | Ground G | Raw | Ground G | |||||||||||
| A | 2.56 | 33.47 | 19.19 | 5.37 | 31.18 | 4.33 | 0.11 | 0.31 | 3.43 | 1098 | 36.4 | 23 | 2860 | 3500 |
| B | 2.12 | 40.98 | 19.00 | 4.25 | 25.97 | 3.94 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 1.07 | 1028 | 46.3 | 20.8 | 2370 | 3520 |
| C | 2.67 | 45.17 | 20.79 | 4.58 | 20.6 | 2.5 | 0.19 | 0.23 | 1.18 | 960 | 57.2 | 16.7 | 1900 | 3700 |
Figure 1The X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern of CFA batch A, B, C.
Figure 2The differential thermal analysis (DTA) pattern of CFA batch A.
Figure 3The differential thermal analysis (DTA) pattern of CFA batch B.
Figure 4The differential thermal analysis (DTA) pattern of CFA batch C.
Figure 5Cumulative distribution of ash grain size of CFA batch A, B, C.
Figure 6Morphology of calcareous fly ash grains batch A (magnification of 1500 times).
Figure 7Morphology of calcareous fly ash grains batch B (magnification of 1500 times).
Figure 8Morphology of calcareous fly ash grains batch C (magnification of 1500 times).
The type, chemical base, density and volume of chemical admixtures. Date obtained from the manufacturer of admixture.
| Symbol of Admixture | Chemical Base | Density at 20 °C, | Maximum Recommended Dosage, [% b.m] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | P1 | lignosulfonates | 1.00+/−0.01 | 0.5% |
| P2 | iminodietanol, bis ethanol, phosphate (V) tri butyl acetate, formaldehyde, methanol, (Z)-octadec-9-enyloamine | 1.07+/−0.01 | 0.5% | |
| SP | PE1 | polycarboxylate ether | 1.07+/−0.02 | 2.5% |
| PE2 | polycarboxylate ether | 1.07+/−0.02 | 1.0% | |
| SMF | melamine sulfonates | 1.20+/−0.03 | 2.3% | |
| SNF | naphthalene sulfonate | 1.15+/−0.03 | 3.6% | |
Properties of cement CEM I 42.5. Data obtained from the cement producer.
| SiO2 [%] | Al2O3 [%] | Fe2O3 [%] | CaO [%] | SO3 [%] | Na2Oe [%] | C3S [%] | C2S [%] | C3A [%] | C4AF [%] | Spec. Surf., [ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20.5 | 4.89 | 2.85 | 63.3 | 2.76 | 0.73 | 65 | 10 | 8.1 | 8.7 | 3500 |
Composition of mortars for testing the rheological properties.
| Constituent | Amount, [g/batch] |
|---|---|
| Cement | 450/405/360/315 |
| Calcium Fly Ash | -/45/90/135 |
| w/(c + CFA) | 0.45/0.55 |
| Water | 202.5/247.5 |
| Standard sand | 1350 |
Figure 9The grading curve of normal sand [34].
Figure 10Influence of P1 and P2 and SMF on yield value g of mortars with raw and ground CFA. (a) after 5 min; (b) after 90 min.
Figure 11Influence of P1 and P2 and SMF on plastic viscosity h of mortars with raw and ground CFA. (a) after 5 min; (b) after 90 min.
Figure 12Influence of SNF, PE1 and PE2 on yield value g of mortars with raw and ground CFA. (a) after 5 min; (b) after 90 min.
Figure 13Influence of SNF, PE1 and PE2 on plastic viscosity h of mortars with raw and ground CFA. (a) after 5 min; (b) after 90 min.
Influence of P and SP on air content in mortars with and without CFA.
| CFA | Air Volume [%] | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| without Admixture | 0.25% P1 | 0.25% P2 | 1.15% SMF | 1.8% SNF | 1.25% PE1 | 0.5% PE2 | |
| CEM I | 5.2 | 4.6 | 19.0 | 2.5 | 13.5 | 2.8 | 9.5 |
| A | 2.8 | 2.4 | 16.6 | 3.3 | 13.1 | 2.4 | 13.2 |
| AG | 2.5 | 1.4 | 15.1 | 2.3 | 12.1 | 2.0 | 14.4 |
| B | 3.5 | 2.7 | 16.3 | 2.6 | 12.5 | 3.0 | 12.3 |
| BG | 2.9 | 2.4 | 17.5 | 1.2 | 11.9 | 4.0 | 11.2 |
| C | 4.2 | 2.1 | 17.2 | 2.7 | 12.9 | 2.0 | 11.6 |
| CG | 2.2 | 1.7 | 18.0 | 1.0 | 11.0 | 3.8 | 10.5 |
Heat of hydration of cement and CFA paste with P2 and SMF, SNF and PE1 [J/g] during 12 h.
| Heat of Hydration, [J/g] | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample | 10 min | 1.5 h | 12 h | Sample | 10 min | 1.5 h | 12 h |
| w/b = 0.55 | w/b = 0.45 | ||||||
| CEM I | 0.166 | 3.600 | 50.315 | CEM I | 0.177 | 3.619 | 51.764 |
| CEM I + ½ max P2 | 0.011 | 1.588 | 20.520 | CEM I + ½ max SNF | −0.121 | 0.904 | 5.977 |
| CEM I + ½ max SMF | 0.122 | 1.295 | 19.330 | CEM I + ½ max PE1 | −0.109 | 1.313 | 4.712 |
| A | 0.850 | 7.336 | 47.157 | A | 0.753 | 6.909 | 47.032 |
| A + ½ max P2 | 0.885 | 6.697 | 32.721 | A + ½ max SNF | 0.627 | 5.854 | 21.384 |
| A + ½ max SMF | 0.852 | 6.277 | 34.699 | A + ½ max PE1 | 0.650 | 4.583 | 14.576 |
| AG | 1.433 | 9.018 | 49.557 | AG | 1.230 | 8.596 | 69.799 |
| AG + ½ max P2 | 1.252 | 7.032 | 35.273 | AG + ½ max SNF | 0.991 | 6.437 | 21.983 |
| AG + ½ max SMF | 1.297 | 7.139 | 36.311 | AG + ½ max PE1 | 1.034 | 6.101 | 18.514 |
| B | 0.876 | 6.843 | 44.860 | B | 0.876 | 6.843 | 44.860 |
| B + ½ max P2 | 0.652 | 5.212 | 27.130 | B + ½ max SNF | 0.853 | 5.766 | 19.844 |
| B + ½ max SMF | 0.684 | 5.645 | 32.767 | B + ½ max PE1 | 0.506 | 4.462 | 13.293 |
| BG | 1.095 | 7.994 | 49.350 | BG | 1.095 | 7.994 | 49.350 |
| BG + ½ max P2 | 0.715 | 5.627 | 30.805 | BG + ½ max SNF | 0.723 | 6.021 | 21.042 |
| BG + ½ max SMF | 0.882 | 5.913 | 33.511 | BG + ½ max PE1 | 0.765 | 5.660 | 17.697 |
| C | 0.907 | 6.905 | 46.781 | C | 0.849 | 6.526 | 47.159 |
| C + ½ max P2 | 0.770 | 5.363 | 31.955 | C + ½ max SNF | 0.644 | 4.716 | 14.542 |
| C + ½ max SMF | 0.578 | 4.511 | 27.013 | C + ½ max PE1 | 0.606 | 3.880 | 10.974 |
| CG | 1.335 | 7.049 | 46.999 | CG | 1.256 | 6.838 | 48.463 |
| CG + ½ max P2 | 1.493 | 7.253 | 40.282 | CG + ½ max SNF | 1.150 | 6.224 | 17.704 |
| CG + ½ max SMF | 1.105 | 5.631 | 32.095 | CG + ½ max PE1 | 0.945 | 5.244 | 10.189 |
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). One-dimensional significance tests for rheological parameters of mortar with P.
| Impact of CFA and P on Rheological Parameters of Mortars | g5 [Nmm] | g90 [Nmm] | h5 [Nmms] | h90 [Nmms] | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Value of F | Level of Significance p | The value of F | Level of Significance p | The Value of F | Level of Significance p | The Value of F | Level of Significance p | |
| Raw and ground CFA; type of batches |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Type of P | 1.25945 | 0.120692 | 19.5596 | 1.85693 | 1.89624 | 0.190867 | 1.69624 | 0.255697 |
| Dosage of P, [% b.m.] | 1. 95367 | 0.100815 | 13.5963 | 2.26472 | 1.69185 | 0.300257 | 1.23665 | 0.30236 |
| Raw and ground CFA; batches and Type of P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Raw and ground CFA; batches and Dosage of P, [% b.m.] | 1.89637 | 0.140802 | 20.0119 | 1.01307 | 2.19993 | 0.093236 | 1.89624 | 0.140827 |
| Type of P and Dosage of P, [% b.m.] | 2.71871 | 0.111022 | 12.5952 | 3.37841 | 1.19355 | 0.336703 | 1.10185 | 0.363647 |
Significant statistical influence is marked in bold italics.
ANOVA. One-dimensional significance tests for rheological parameters of mortar with SP.
| Impact of CFA and SP on Rheological Parameters of Mortars | g5 [Nmm] | g90 [Nmm] | h5 [Nmms] | h90 [Nmms] | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Value of F | Level of Significance p | The Value of F | Level of Significance p | The Value of F | Level of Significance p | The Value of F | Level of Significance p | |
| Raw and ground CFA; type of batches |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Type of SP | 25.263 | 5.3485 | 5.7630 | 0.006398 | 2.536958 | 0.096357 | 2.5693 | 0.019653 |
| Dosage of SP, [% b.m.] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Raw and ground CFA; batches and Type of SP | 33.214 | 8.3383 | 1.6148 | 0.188646 | 3.094208 | 0.034357 | 2.33994 | 0.045490 |
| Raw and ground CFA; batches and Dosage of SP, [% b.m.] | 54.996 | 13.8065 | 1.7850 | 0.015218 | 1.021517 | 0.498316 | 2.09643 | 0.081593 |
| Type of SP and Dosage of SP, [% b.m.] | 10.816 | 25.5603 | 1.3870 | 0.025324 | 1.315541 | 0.304389 | 2.76971 | 0.016045 |
Significant statistical influence is marked in bold italics.
Figure 14Influence of CFA on effectivness of P1, P2 and SMF (mortars of w/b = 0.55); (a) relative admixture content (in relation to reference mortar without CFA) neccessary to be added to obtain mortar with g5 = 20 Nmm; (b) increase in yield value g of mortars with initial yield value g equal 20 Nmm in time.
Figure 15Influence of CFA on effectivness of SNF, PE1 and PE2 (mortars of w/b = 0.45); (a) relative admixture content (in relation to reference mortar without CFA) neccessary to be added to obtain mortar with g5 = 20 Nmm; (b) increase in yield value g of mortars with initial yield value g equal 20 Nmm in time.
Figure 16Relative effect of CFA presence on initial yield value g (g5) and yield value g increase in time (g90–g5) of mortars in respect to reference mortars REF without CFA (Mortars without and with P1 or P2 or SMF − ½ of recommended maximum dosage, w/b = 0.55).
Figure 17Relative effect of CFA presence on initial yield value g (g5) and yield value g increase in time (g90–g5) of mortars in respect of reference mortars without CFA. (Mortars with SNF or PE1 or PE2 − ½ of recommended maximum dosage, w/b = 0.45).
Influence of raw and ground CFA addition on the technical effectiveness level of P and SP action.
| Type of Admixture | In Raw CFA Presence | In Ground CFA Presence |
|---|---|---|
| P: | Technical effectiveness of P action | |
| P1- lignosulfonates (max 0.5%) | −2 * | 0 * |
| P2- iminodietanol, bis ethanol, phosphate (V) tri butyl acetate, formaldehyde, methanol, (Z)-octadec-9-enyloamine (max 0.5%) | 2 * | 2 * |
| SP: | Technical effectiveness of SP action | |
| SMF- melamine sulfonates (max 2.3%) | −2 * | −2 * |
| SNF- naphthalene sulfonate (max 3.6%) | −2 * | −1 * |
| PE1- polycarboxylate ether (max 2.5%) | −2 * | 0 * |
| PE2- polycarboxylate ether (max 1.0%) | −2 * | −1 * |
Explanation of symbols in the table: *−2- significantly reduced efficiency compared to operation without CFA; −1- slightly reduced efficiency compared to operation without CFA; 0- unchanged efficiency compared to operation without CFA; 1- slightly increased efficiency compared to operation without CFA; 2- significantly increased efficiency compared to operation without CFA.