| Literature DB >> 35269319 |
Xiaojiang Hong1,2, Jin Chai Lee1, Bo Qian2.
Abstract
The increasing demand for high-strength lightweight concrete (HSLWC) with excellent mechanical properties has inspired the development of nanomaterials in fundamentally solving brittleness and cracking. This work investigated the effects of graphene oxide (GO) on the mechanical properties and microstructure of HSLWC, including the workability, density, compressive strength in different curing regimes, splitting tensile strength, flexural strength, modulus of elasticity and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Six groups of mixtures were mixed with GO aqueous solution at a dosage of 0.00%, 0.02%, 0.04%, 0.05%, 0.06%, and 0.08% by weight of cement, respectively, and dispersed by ultrasound for 30 min. The test results showed that adding a low volume of GO to the specimens could slightly increase the density, rationally reduce the slump, and significantly improve the mechanical properties. The maximum increase in compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, modulus of elasticity and flexural strength of HSLWC with GO at 28 days was by 24%, 17%, 15%, 20%, respectively, as compared with HSLWC without GO. Simultaneously, the SEM results showed that GO could not only fill nano-scale pores, but also regulate the formation and growth of flower-like crystals, which was an important factor for the further improvement of properties. The research results provided a potential new pathway to improve the mechanical properties of HSLWC.Entities:
Keywords: graphene oxide; high-strength lightweight concrete; mechanical properties; microstructure
Year: 2022 PMID: 35269319 PMCID: PMC8912292 DOI: 10.3390/nano12050833
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Physical properties of the aggregates.
| Physical Properties | SC | SPC |
|---|---|---|
| Fineness | 1.93 | 2.96 |
| Bulk density (kg/m3) | 835 | 974 |
| Apparent density (kg/m3) | 1425 | 1638 |
| Water absorption (3 h) (%) | 2.9 | 1.23 |
| Water absorption (24 h) (%) | 4.6 | 1.36 |
| Grading Sieve size (mm) | Cumulative % by weight passing | |
| 19.1 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| 9.5 | 86.3 | 100.0 |
| 4.75 | 9.6 | 92.0 |
| 2.36 | 0.0 | 81.0 |
| 1.18 | 0.0 | 58.0 |
| 0.6 | 0.0 | 35.0 |
| 0.3 | 0.0 | 13.6 |
| 0.15 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Physical and chemical properties of GO.
| Physical Parameter | Main Chemical Component (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specific Surface Area (m2/g) | Density | Single Layer Thickness (nm) | Tensile Strength | Purity | Number of Layers | C | O | S |
| 232 | 1780 | 0.92 | 0.12 | >95 wt.% | 5–10 | 68.44 | 30.92 | 0.63 |
Mix proportion (per m3).
| Mix No. | Cement (kg) | Water (kg) | SC (kg) | SPC (kg) | SP (kg) | GO (%) (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G0 | 457 | 160 | 520 | 380 | 9.1 | 0 (0) |
| G2 | 457 | 160 | 520 | 380 | 9.1 | 0.02 (91.4) |
| G4 | 457 | 160 | 520 | 380 | 9.1 | 0.04 (182.8) |
| G5 | 457 | 160 | 520 | 380 | 9.1 | 0.05 (228.5) |
| G6 | 457 | 160 | 520 | 380 | 9.1 | 0.06 (274.2) |
| G8 | 457 | 160 | 520 | 380 | 9.1 | 0.08 (365.6) |
Figure 1Dispersing effect of different proportions of GO in a 2% superplasticizer aqueous solution: (a) 0.00%; (b) 0.02%; (c) 0.04%; (d) 0.05%; (e) 0.06%; (f) 0.08%.
Curing conditions.
| Curing Code | Description of 28-Day Curing Conditions |
|---|---|
| The Laboratory and Water Temperature: 23 ± 3 °C | |
| AC | Specimens were placed in air for 27 days after 1 day demolding |
| 3W | Specimens were immersed in water for 2 days after 1 day demolding and then placed in air for 25 days |
| 5W | Specimens were immersed in water for 4 days after 1 day demolding and then placed in air for 23 days |
| 7W | Specimens were immersed in water for 6 days after 1 day demolding and then placed in air for 21 days |
| FW | Specimens were immersed water for 27 days after 1 day demolding |
Slump and density of concrete mixes.
| Mix No. | Slump (mm) | Density (kg/m3) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demolded | Air Dry at 28 Days | Saturated at 28 Days | Oven Dry at 28 Days | ||
| G0 | 96 | 1738 | 1727 | 1786 | 1668 |
| G2 | 86 | 1744 | 1736 | 1767 | 1702 |
| G4 | 78 | 1749 | 1745 | 1764 | 1732 |
| G5 | 73 | 1753 | 1751 | 1760 | 1736 |
| G6 | 66 | 1754 | 1750 | 1764 | 1742 |
| G8 | 58 | 1768 | 1763 | 1777 | 1756 |
Figure 2The relationship between slump and density with proportions of GO.
Figure 3Compressive strength of concrete with varying GO content.
Figure 4Compressive strength of concrete at different ages.
The 28-day compressive strength of HSLWC under different curing conditions.
| Mix No. | 28-Day Compressive Strength under Different Curing Conditions (MPa) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FW | AC | 3 W | 5 W | 7 W | |
| G0 | 53.64 | 47.77 (89%) 1 | 49.45 (92%) | 52.07 (97%) | 54.82 (102%) |
| G2 | 55.71 | 51.44 (92%) | 52.22 (94%) | 56.33 (101%) | 57.42 (103%) |
| G4 | 62.46 | 59.50 (95%) | 60.22 (96%) | 64.41 (103%) | 65.87 (105%) |
| G5 | 65.16 | 62.51 (96%) | 63.28 (97%) | 67.87 (104%) | 69.36 (106%) |
| G6 | 65.52 | 62.68 (96%) | 63.61 (97%) | 68.54 (105%) | 69.64 (106%) |
| G8 | 66.36 | 62.84 (95%) | 64.44 (97%) | 68.67 (103%) | 69.78 (105%) |
1 The data in parentheses are percentages of 28-day compressive strength under FW curing regime.
Figure 5Relationship between GO and the 28-day splitting tensile strength.
Figure 6Relationship between the 28-day compressive strength and the 28-day splitting tensile strength of concrete.
Ratio of flexural strength to compressive strength of concrete at an age of 28 days.
| Mix No. | fcu (MPa) | fr (MPa) | fcu/fr (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| G0 | 53.64 | 5.45 | 10.2 |
| G2 | 55.71 | 5.78 | 10.4 |
| G4 | 62.46 | 6.11 | 9.8 |
| G5 | 65.16 | 6.22 | 9.5 |
| G6 | 65.52 | 6.24 | 9.5 |
| G8 | 66.36 | 6.26 | 9.4 |
Figure 7Relationship between GO and the 28-day flexural strength of concrete.
Figure 8Relationship between compressive strength and flexural strength of concrete.
The measured 28-day modulus of elasticity and the predicted modulus of elasticity from the equations (MPa).
| Mix No. | G0 | G2 | G4 | G5 | G6 | G8 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 19.88 | 22.32 | 23.53 | 23.79 | 23.82 | 23.88 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (3) E = 0.0017w2fcu0.33 * | BS 8110 [ | 18.87 | 19.31 | 20.40 | 20.54 | 20.70 | 21.10 |
| (4) E = 0.043w1.5fcy0.5 | ACI 318 [ | 20.22 | 20.76 | 22.27 | 22.63 | 22.79 | 23.19 |
| (5) E = 0.03w1.5fcy0.5 | Hossain et al. [ | 14.10 | 14.49 | 15.54 | 15.79 | 15.90 | 16.18 |
| (6) E = 0.04w1.5fcu0.5 | CEB/FIP [ | 21.03 | 21.60 | 23.16 | 23.54 | 23.70 | 24.12 |
| (7) E = (0.062 + 0.0297fcy0.5)w1.5 | Slate et al. [ | 18.41 | 18.83 | 19.93 | 20.15 | 20.28 | 20.61 |
| (8) E = 2.1684fcy0.535 | Tasnimi [ | 16.20 | 16.53 | 17.58 | 17.98 | 18.03 | 18.16 |
| (9) E = 0.0091 (w/2400)1.5 fcu2 | Short [ | 13.56 | 14.78 | 18.90 | 20.43 | 20.77 | 21.62 |
* E is the modulus of elasticity (GPa), w is the air dry density (kg/m3), fcy is the cylinder compressive strength (MPa) and fcu is the cube compressive strength (MPa). A coefficient of 0.8 proposed by Lo et al. [62] was used to convert the cube to cylinder compressive strength. (+): indicating overestimate, (−): indicating underestimate.
Figure 9SEM images of the HSLWC with varying GO content at 28 days: (a) 0.00%; (b) 0.02%; (c) 0.04%; (d) 0.05%; (e) 0.06%; (f) 0.08%.