| Literature DB >> 35591717 |
Zengfeng Zhao1, Jianzhuang Xiao1, Denis Damidot2,3, Sébastien Rémond4, David Bulteel2,3, Luc Courard5.
Abstract
Adherent hardened cement paste attached to recycled concrete aggregates (RCA) generally presents a higher porosity than natural aggregates, which induces a lower porosity in the properties of RCA. The characterization of the adherent hardened cement paste content (HCPC) in the fine RCA would promote better applications of RCA in concrete, but the determination of HCPC in fine RCA is not well established. A simple method based on salicylic acid dissolution was specifically developed to quantify the HCPC in RCA, especially for RCA containing limestone aggregates. The results demonstrated that the soluble fraction in salicylic acid (SFSA) was equal to the HCPC for white cement and slightly lower for grey Portland cement, which was also confirmed by a theoretical approach using modelling the hydration of cement paste with the chemical equations and the stoichiometric ratios. The physical and mechanical properties of RCA (e.g., water absorption) were strongly correlated to the SFSA. For industrial RCA, SFSA did not give the exact value of HCPC, but it was sufficient to correlate HCPC with the other properties of RCA. The water absorption could be estimated with good accuracy for very fine RCA (laboratory-manufactured RCA or industrial RCA) by extrapolating the relationship between water absorption and HCPC, which is very important for concrete formulation.Entities:
Keywords: X-ray Diffraction; density; hardened cement paste content (HCPC); recycled concrete aggregates (RCA); salicylic acid; water absorption
Year: 2022 PMID: 35591717 PMCID: PMC9106043 DOI: 10.3390/ma15093384
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Summary of the hardened cement paste content or adherent mortar content measurement of RCA from literature.
| Author (Reference No.) | Test Methods | Fractions of RCA (mm) | Adherent Mortar or Hardened Cement Paste Content (%) | Advantages/Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Etxeberria et al. [ | Not mentioned | CRCA 4/10, 10/25 | 40% for fraction 4/10; 20% for fraction 10/25 | - |
| De Juan et al. [ | Thermal method | 15 samples of CRCA 4/8, 8/16 | 33–55% for fraction 4/8; 23–44% for fraction 8/16 | This method is only suitable for CRCA because the removal of mortar necessitates “brushing” the RCA, which is difficult with small particles. |
| Nagataki et al. [ | Hydrochloric acid solution method | CRCA 5/20 | 52.3–55% for level 1; 30.2–32.4% for level 3 | This method cannot be used for RCA containing limestone aggregates and filler, which are also dissolved by hydrochloric acid. |
| Yagishita et al. [ | Hydrochloric acid solution method | CRCA 5/10, 10/20 | 40.2% for low-grade fraction 10/20, 35.2 for low-grade fraction 5/10; 26% for medium-grade fraction 10/20, 16.7 for low-grade fraction 5/10 | |
| Abbas et al. [ | Image analysis method and sodium sulphate solution method | Two CRCA 4.75/9.5, 9.5/12.7,12.7/19 | Image analysis: 30%, 21%, 21% for 4.75/9.5, 9.5/12.7, 12.7/19, respectively; | The image analysis method is suitable for the quantification of residual mortar in CRCA. Moreover, this method is long to perform as a statistical approach is needed. |
| Hansen and Narud [ | Linear traverse method | CRCA 4/8, 8/16, 16/32 | 58–64% for fraction 4/8; 38–39% for fraction 8/16; 25–35% for fraction 16/32 | This linear traverse method is only suitable for adherent mortar content of CRCA. |
| Topçu et al. [ | Linear traverse method | CRCA 4/8, 16/32 | 60% for fraction 4/8; 30% for fraction 16/32 | |
| Ulsen et al. [ | X-ray SEM-based image analysis | FRCA 0.15/3.0 | The correlations between the sum of CaO and LOI and cement paste + carbonates, and the comparison to the cement plus carbonate content by HCl leaching stated the reliability SEM-based image analysis. | |
| Macedo et al. [ | The dissolution method in deionized water (10 days) | Simulated 1%, 5%, 10% and 20% hardened cement paste | The deionized method presents good efficiency in the removal of the calcium ions from the hydrated cement phases, C-S-H and CH in the simulated samples | There is the carbonation contamination and dissolution in deionized water takes ten days, which is too long. In addition, the ICP analysis is expensive. |
Mineralogical composition of cement determined by the XRD-Rietveld (%).
|
|
|
|
| Anhydrite | Calcite | Periclase | Gypsum | Quartz | Slag | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White cement CEM I 52.5 N | 73.90 | 21.87 | 1.46 | - | 0.52 | 1.53 | 0.72 | - | - | - |
| Grey cement CEM II/A-L 52.5 N | 52.37 | 8.01 | 8.86 | 8.89 | 0.74 | 17.93 | 0.46 | 2.05 | 0.7 | - |
| CBR CEM III/A 42.5 N | 35.1 | 7.91 | 3.29 | 5.22 | 0.16 | 0.03 | - | 0.86 | - | 44.01 |
| CBR CEM I 52.5 N | 66.97 | 12.08 | 7.19 | 9.47 | 0.02 | 1.03 | - | 1.76 | - | - |
Figure 1Experimental protocol of measurement of hardened cement paste content in RCA (the subfigure refers to the corresponding procedure).
XRD results before and after dissolution in salicylic acid and methanol for cement and pastes (number of * refers to the percentage of phases, the more *, the more percentage presented).
| Sample | Insoluble Phases |
|---|---|
| 1. After the dissolution of white cement | Calcite Ca(CO3) ****, |
| Calcium Sulfate Ca(SO4) **, | |
| Syngenite K2Ca(SO4)2.H2O *, | |
| Calcium Sulfate Hydrate Ca(SO4)(H2O)0.5 *, | |
| Calcium Aluminum Oxide Ca3Al2O6 ***, | |
| Calcite, magnesian Ca,Mg(CO3) ** | |
| 2. After the dissolution of grey cement | Calcite Ca(CO3) ****, |
| Brownmillerite Ca2(Al, Fe + 3)2O5 **, | |
| Anhydrite Ca(SO4) **, | |
| Gypsum Ca(SO4).2H2O *, Quartz SiO2 *, | |
| Calcium Aluminum Oxide Ca3Al2O6 *** | |
| Calcite, magnesian Ca,Mg(CO3) * | |
| 3. Before the dissolution of white cement paste ( | Portlandite Ca(OH)2 ****, β-dicalcium Silicate Ca2SiO4 **, |
| Calcite Ca(CO3) *, Tricalcium Silicate Ca3SiO5 *, | |
| Calcium Silicate Hydrate Ca1.5SiO3.5 ×H2O * | |
| 4. After the dissolution of white cement paste ( | Calcite Ca(CO3) ****, |
| Calcium Sulfate Hydrate Ca(SO4).0.5H2O ***, | |
| Bassanite Ca(SO4).0.5H2O *** | |
| 5. Before the dissolution of grey cement paste ( | Portlandite Ca(OH)2 ****, Calcite Ca(CO3) ***, Quartz SiO2 *, |
| β-dicalcium Silicate Ca2SiO4 **, | |
| Calcium Aluminum Oxide Carbonate Hydroxide Hydrate (AFm hemi carbonate) Ca4Al2O6(CO3)0.5(OH).11.5H2O **, | |
| Brownmillerite Ca2(Al, Fe +3)2O5 * | |
| 6. After the dissolution of grey cement paste( | Calcite Ca(CO3) ****, Quartz SiO2 * |
| Calcium Aluminum Oxide Ca3Al2O6 *, | |
| Brownmillerite Ca2(Al, Fe + 3)2O5 **, | |
| Calcium Sulfate Hydrate Ca(SO4).0.5H2O *, | |
| Calcium Aluminum Iron Oxide Ca3(Al, Fe)2O6 * | |
| 7. Before the dissolution of RCAl_OC1_90 0.63/1.25 mm ( | Calcite Ca(CO3) ****, Quartz SiO2 **, |
| Portlandite Ca(OH)2 ** | |
| 8. After the dissolution of RCAl_OC1_90 0.63/1.25 mm ( | Calcite Ca(CO3) ****, Quartz SiO2 **, |
| Dolomite CaMg(CO3)2 * |
Figure 2XRD diffractograms: After the dissolution of white cement. C, F, Z, S, A and M stand for calcite, calcium sulfate, syngenite, calcium sulfate hydrate, calcium sulfate hydrate, portlandite and calcite magnesian, respectively.
Figure 3XRD diffractograms: After the dissolution of grey cement. C, B, H, G, Q, A and M stand for calcite, brownmillerite, anhydrite, gypsum, quartz, calcium aluminum oxide and calcite magnesian, respectively.
Figure 4XRD diffractograms: Before (black curve below) and after the dissolution (red curve above) of white cement paste. B, C, P and L stand for brownmillerite, calcite, portlandite and β-dicalcium silicate, respectively.
Figure 5XRD diffractograms: Before (black curve below) and after the dissolution (red curve above) of grey cement paste. B, S, C, Q, A, P and L stand for brownmillerite, calcium sulfate hydrate, calcite, quartz, calcium aluminum oxide, portlandite and β-dicalcium silicate, respectively.
Figure 6XRD diffractograms: Before (black curve below) and after the dissolution (red curve above) of RCAl_OC1_90 0.63/1.25 mm. Q, C, D, and P stand for quartz, calcite, dolomite and portlandite, respectively.
Experimental results of SFSA for cement pastes and natural aggregates (%).
| Test 1 | Test 2 | Test 3 | Mean | Standard Deviation Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White cement paste (CEM I 52.5 N) | 95.46 | 96.35 | 94.89 | 95.57 | 0.74 |
| Grey cement paste (CEM II/A-L 52.5 N) | 62.56 | 63.08 | 63.33 | 62.99 | 0.39 |
| Cement paste (CBR CEM III/A 42.5 N) | 79.87 | 80.09 | 80.48 | 80.14 | 0.31 |
| Cement paste (CBR CEM I 52.5 N) | 78.29 | 78.26 | 78.70 | 78.42 | 0.24 |
| Siliceous sand | 0.76 | 0.86 | 0.88 | 0.83 | 0.06 |
| Calcareous aggregate | 3.42 | 3.03 | 3.18 | 3.21 | 0.20 |
Chemical equations and corresponding stoichiometric ratios used for the modelling of hydration of cement.
| Chemical Equations | Stoichiometric Ratios |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Values needed to calculate the SFSA for the three cements.
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White cement (CEM I 52.5 N) | 0.9775 | 0.9797 | 0.9614 | 0.4370 | 0.4527 |
| Grey cement (CEM II/A-L 52.5 N) | 0.8092 | 0.7462 | 0.6482 | 0.3940 | 0.5408 |
| CBR CEM I 52.5 N | 0.9749 | 0.8109 | 0.8322 | 0.4645 | 0.5968 |
Figure 7Variations of theoretical SFSA for pure grey cement paste, pure cement paste with CBR CEM I 52.5 N and for pure white cement-based paste, mortar of concrete OC1 and concrete OC1. Three horizontal solid lines show the comparison with the values obtained for the corresponding cement pastes.
SFSA for different granular classes of the laboratory-produced RCA (unit: %, the numbers 28 and 90 refer to the aging of the original concrete samples in days).
| Fractions (mm) | RCAl_OC1_28 | RCAl_OC1_90 | RCAl_OC2_28 | RCAl_OC2_90 | RCAl_OC3_28 | RCAl_OC3_90 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0/0.63 | 26.54 | 27.28 | 32.66 | 39.01 | 37.31 | 38.36 |
| 0.63/1.25 | 24.98 | 25.72 | 29.51 | 32.63 | 35.68 | 35.86 |
| 1.25/2.5 | 23.25 | 23.60 | 27.06 | 27.79 | 31.53 | 33.22 |
| 2.5/5 | 19.35 | 20.76 | 23.16 | 25.35 | 28.29 | 29.34 |
| 0/5 | 22.58 | 23.35 | 26.55 | 29.27 | 31.59 | 32.63 |
| Calculated value on concrete | 16.53 | 17.48 | 21.36 | 22.50 | 25.90 | 27.20 |
| Calculated value on mortar | 32.90 | 34.38 | 40.10 | 41.70 | 46.16 | 47.80 |
Figure 8SFSA as a function of the average particle size of the four granular classes for all studied RCA.
Figure 9Density as a function of the granular classes for all studied RCA.
Figure 10Correlation between specific density and SFSA in RCA.
Coefficients of the linear relationships between density and SFSA (y = ax + b).
| a | b | R2 | Density of NA (x = 0) | Density of Hardened Cement Paste (x = 100%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCAi1 | −0.010 | 2.64 | 0.95 | 2.64 | 1.64 |
| RCAi2 | −0.008 | 2.60 | 0.82 | 2.60 | 1.84 |
| RCAi3 | −0.014 | 2.61 | 0.96 | 2.61 | 1.17 |
| RCAl_OC1_90 | −0.011 | 2.63 | 0.78 | 2.63 | 1.55 |
| RCAl_OC1_90 wc | −0.012 | 2.77 | 0.98 | 2.77 | 1.57 |
Water absorption of all fractions (in mm) of studied RCA determined by standard EN (WAEN) and IFSTTAR (WAIF) methods (%).
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0/0.63 | 0.63/1.25 | 1.25/2.5 | 2.5/5 | 0/0.63 | 0.63/1.25 | 1.25/2.5 | 2.5/5 | |
| RCAl_OC1_28 | 7.61 | 10.46 | 8.22 | 7.76 | 21.90 | 11.15 | 9.36 | 7.83 |
| RCAl_OC2_28 | 8.05 | 12.78 | 10.90 | 9.33 | 23.18 | 13.59 | 11.52 | 9.45 |
| RCAl_OC3_28 | 9.74 | 10.07 | 8.10 | 7.68 | 21.44 | 10.89 | 8.84 | 7.71 |
| RCAl_OC1_90 | 9.42 | 9.37 | 7.79 | 7.12 | 17.66 | 10.36 | 8.76 | 8.39 |
| RCAl_OC2_90 | 9.77 | 11.02 | 8.67 | 7.99 | 22.84 | 11.94 | 9.50 | 8.66 |
| RCAl_OC3_90 | 6.52 | 8.75 | 7.31 | 6.67 | 16.79 | 10.08 | 8.76 | 7.58 |
| RCAl_OC1_90 wc | 6.30 | 6.27 | 5.57 | 5.25 | 13.10 | 7.14 | 6.05 | 5.64 |
| RCAi1 | 6.14 | 8.01 | 7.03 | 6.43 | 16.76 | 8.59 | 7.23 | 6.61 |
| RCAi2 | 8.62 | 9.17 | 7.65 | 6.70 | 21.33 | 10.10 | 7.92 | 7.05 |
| RCAi3 | 6.32 | 8.09 | 6.99 | 6.66 | 15.85 | 8.91 | 7.24 | 6.92 |
Figure 11Correlation between water absorption (IFSTTAR method) and SFSA for all studied RCA.
Extrapolated water absorption of Fraction 0/0.63mm from standard EN and IFSTTAR for industrial RCA and laboratory-manufactured RCA.
| Tested | Tested Value of EN 1097-6 (%) | Extrapolated Value of IFSTTAR (%) | Extrapolated Value of EN 1097-6 (%) | Difference between Two Extrapolated Values (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RCAi1 | 16.76 | 6.14 | 9.16 | 8.48 | 0.68 |
| RCAi2 | 21.33 | 8.62 | 11.44 | 10.23 | 1.21 |
| RCAi3 | 15.85 | 6.32 | 11.44 | 9.94 | 1.05 |
| RCAl_OC1_90 | 17.66 | 9.42 | 10.67 | 9.82 | 0.85 |
| RCAl_OC1_90 wc | 13.1 | - | 7.26 | 6.35 | 0.91 |