| Literature DB >> 35208115 |
Weixiong Li1,2, Duanyi Wang1, Bo Chen1,2, Kaihui Hua3, Zhiyong Huang1, Chunlong Xiong1, Huayang Yu1.
Abstract
Coarse aggregate is the main component of asphalt mixtures, and differences in its morphology directly impact road performance. The utilization of standard aggregates can benefit the standard design and performance improvement. In this study, 3D printing technology was adopted to prepare artificial aggregates with specific shapes for the purpose of making the properties of artificial aggregates to be similar to the properties of natural aggregates. Through a series of material experiments, the optimal cement-based material ratio for the preparation of high-strength artificial aggregates and corresponding manufacturing procedures have been determined. The performance of the artificial aggregates has been verified by comparing the physical and mechanical properties with those of natural aggregates. Results indicate that using 3D printing technology to generate the standard coarse aggregate is feasible, but its high cost in implementation cannot be ignored. The 3D shape of the artificial aggregate prepared by the grouting molding process has a good consistency with the natural aggregate, and the relative deviation of the overall macro-scale volume index of the artificial aggregate is within 4%. The average Los Angeles abrasion loss of artificial cement-based aggregate is 15.2%, which is higher than that of diabase aggregate, but significantly lower than that of granite aggregate and limestone aggregate. In a nutshell, 3D printed aggregates prepared using the optimized cement-based material ratio and corresponding manufacturing procedures have superior physical and mechanical performance, which provides technical support for the test standardization and engineering application of asphalt pavements.Entities:
Keywords: 3D printing; cement-based aggregate; coarse aggregate; natural aggregate; sustainable construction
Year: 2022 PMID: 35208115 PMCID: PMC8878064 DOI: 10.3390/ma15041575
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1The schematic of the ORNL ‘SkyBAAM’ 3D printing system.
Figure 2Simplified 3D printing procedure (a) Digital model; (b) Layered processing; (c) Printing process.
Summary of major 3D printing techniques.
| Type | Accuracy | Material | Features |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDM | 0.025~0.762 | Thermoplastic materials: PC, ABS, PLA, etc. | Simple operation, low cost, high material utilization, Simple to support |
| SLA | 0.025~0.1 | Transparent photosensitive resin, milky white photosensitive resin, oligomer, reactive diluent, photoinitiator | High degree of automation, high precision, excellent appearance quality, and can make complex structure models |
| SLS | 0.1~0.2 | Nylon, ABS, resin coated sand, polycarbonate, metal, ceramic powder, etc. | Using a variety of materials, simple production process, no supporting structure, high material utilization rate |
| DLP | 0.04 | Liquid photopolymer | Good stability, support offline printing; high printing accuracy; adjustable printing layer thickness, the system can automatically generate support software |
| 3DPG | 0.013~0.1 | Powder materials (gypsum powder, etc.) | Low cost, wide range of materials, fast forming speed, can produce complex shape parts |
| 3D inkjet | 0.1 | Photosensitive resin polymer material | High-quality printing of 3D digital models; short design cycle; wide selection of materials; easy support removal |
Properties of ABS resin.
| Test Program | Test Value |
|---|---|
| Tensile strength/MPa | 42–62 |
| Notched impact strength/(J·m−1) | 60–80 |
| Flexural strength/MPa | 68–80 |
| Glass transition temperature/°C | 100 |
Properties of photosensitive resin.
| Test Program | Test Value |
|---|---|
| Flexural modulus/MPa | 2813~3520 |
| Notched impact strength/(J·m−1) | 42~50 |
| Flexural strength/MPa | 83~90 |
| Mohr’s hardness | 87~92 |
Figure 3Original coarse aggregate.
Figure 4Flow-chart of 3D printing procedure.
Figure 5Aggregate scanning.
Figure 63D printing resign-based models (a): photosensitive resin; (b): ABS resign model.
Figure 7Three-dimensional appearance of printed aggregates (a): natural aggregate; (b): photosensitive resin-based aggregate (SLA printing); (c): ABS resign-based aggregate (DLP printing).
The deviations between resin-based aggregates and natural aggregates.
| Samples | Type | Volume Deviation | Surface Area Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | SLA | −2.80% | −0.80% |
| DLP | −1.00% | −1.70% | |
| 2 | SLA | −3.70% | −2.00% |
| DLP | 2.70% | −0.56% | |
| 3 | SLA | −2.30% | −1.60% |
| DLP | 1.20% | −0.72% | |
| 4 | SLA | −2.10% | −0.72% |
| DLP | −1.30% | −1.90% | |
| 5 | SLA | −2.70% | −1.20% |
| DLP | 2.30% | −1.30% | |
| 6 | SLA | −1.90% | −1.80% |
| DLP | 2.20% | −0.85% | |
| 7 | SLA | −2.10% | −1.12% |
| DLP | −1.90% | −1.10% | |
| 8 | SLA | −2.70% | −2.20% |
| DLP | 2.30% | −1.60% |
Properties of Portland cement.
| Specific Surface Area | Stability | Initial Setting Time | Final Setting Time | Flexural Strength (MPa) | Compressive Strength | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3d | 28d | 3d | 28d | ||||
| 410 | Pass | 173 | 214 | 6.2 | 9.1 | 32 | 59.3 |
Gradation of pearl river fine sand (the fineness modulus is 1.51).
| Aggregate Size | ≥4.75 | 2.36–4.75 | 1.18–2.36 | 0.6–1.18 | 0.3–0.6 | 0.15–0.3 | ≤0.15 |
| Mass Ratio | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 62.7 | 26.0 | 11.3 |
Technical indicators of calcium sulfoaluminate cement.
| Specific Surface Area | 1.18 mm Screen Sieve Residue | Initial Setting Time | Final Setting Time | 7d Limit Expansion Rate in Water | Compressive Strength | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7d | 28d | |||||
| 284 | 0.22 | 150 | 230 | 0.029 | 31.8 | 52.0 |
Technical indicators of fly ash.
| 45 µm | Stability (mm) | Water Demand Ratio | Sulfur Trioxide | Moisture Content | Ignition Loss | Free Calcium Oxide |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11.0 | 0.5 | 94 | 0.74 | 0.1 | 4.41 | 0.8 |
Technical indicators of silica fume.
| Specific Surface Area (m2/kg) | Ignition Loss | Water Demand Ratio (%) | Chloride Ion | Moisture Content (%) | SiO2 | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25,100 | 2.5 | 113 | 0.014 | 1.1 | 94.05 | 112 |
The initial ratios of each component.
| Raw Material | Material Mass Ratio | Initial Ratio | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cement | 100 | 100 | |||||
| Fly ash | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 | 18 | 12 | |
| Sand | 15.6 | 31.2 | 46.8 | 62.4 | 78 | 46.8 | |
| Silica fume | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 6 |
| Water reducing agent | 0 | 0.45 | 0.9 | 1.35 | 1.8 | 2.25 | 1.35 |
| Swelling agent | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 |
| Water | 28.5 | 28.5 | |||||
Figure 8The influence of the content of different components on the compressive strength (a): fly ash; (b) silica fume; (c) sand; (d) water reducing agent; (e) expansion agent.
Figure 9Fluidity test (a): low fluidity status; (b) high fluidity status.
Figure 10The influence of the content of different components on fluidity (a): fly ash; (b) silica fume; (c) sand; (d) water reducing agent; (e) expansion agent.
Figure 11The prepared two molds (a): plaster mold; (b): silica mold.
Figure 12Mold grouting (a): preparation of cement mortar; (b): mortar injection; (c) Demolding.
Figure 13Prepared artificial aggregates.
Figure 143D scanning results of natural aggregates ((a–d) are random samples).
Figure 153D scanning results of cement-based artificial aggregates ((a–d) are random samples).
Figure 16The relative deviation of the volume indicators of natural aggregates and cement-based artificial aggregates.
Apparent density and water absorption of different materials.
| Apparent Density | Moisture Absorption | |
|---|---|---|
| ABS resin-based artificial | 1.2 | 0 |
| Cement-based artificial | 2.16 | 3.6 |
| Natural aggregates (diabase) | 2.89 | 0.5 |
Figure 17Los Angeles abrasion test results of different aggregates.