| Literature DB >> 35806560 |
Feng Lu1,2, Haiyan Wang3, Lichuan Wang2,4, Kai Zhao3, Junru Zhang2.
Abstract
The present study explored the degradation law and service life prediction of tunnel lining concrete with different mineral admixtures under coupled actions of sulfate attack (SA) and drying-wetting (DW) cycles. The deterioration resistance coefficient (DRC) of compressive strength and influence coefficients of sulfate concentration, mineral admixture content, water/binder (w/b) ratio, and curing regime on DRC were studied. After that, a new service life prediction model based on damage mechanics was developed and analyzed. Results show that, by increasing the DW cycles, the DRC first increases and then decreases. DRCs of Ordinary Portland cement (OPC), fly ash (FA), and ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) concrete linearly decrease with the increase of sulfate concentration, while the silica fume (SF) concrete displays a two-stage process; by increasing the admixture content, the DRCs of FA and GGBS concrete exhibit two distinct stages, while the SF concrete depicts a three-stage process; increasing the w/b ratio linearly decreases the DRC; the DRC of curing regime was sequenced as standard curing (SC) > fog curing (FC) > water curing (WC) > same condition curing (SCC). Based on the experimental results, the service life prediction model is applied and validated. The validation results show that the proposed model can accurately predict the lifetime of concrete with different mix proportions. Furthermore, it is found that the mineral admixture can effectively improve the lifetime of concrete, and the composite mineral admixture is more effective than a single mineral admixture in improving the lifetime of concrete.Entities:
Keywords: deterioration resistance coefficient; drying–wetting cycles; service life prediction; sulfate attack; tunnel lining concrete
Year: 2022 PMID: 35806560 PMCID: PMC9267559 DOI: 10.3390/ma15134435
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Figure 1Sulfate attack of a tunnel lining in southwest China.
Physical and mechanical properties of OPC used for this research.
| Water Requirement of Normal Consistency (%) | Soundness | Loss on Ignition (%) | 45 μm Sieving Residue (%) | Specific Surface Area (m2/kg) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 28.4 | Qualified | 3.13 | 0.8 | 380 | |||
| Setting time (min) | Flexural strength (MPa) | Compressive strength (MPa) | |||||
| Initial set | Final set | 1 d | 3 d | 28 d | 1 d | 3 d | 28 d |
| 155 | 215 | 2.2 | 5.0 | 9.5 | 7.9 | 30.8 | 45.6 |
Performance index of mineral admixtures.
| Mineral Admixtures | Water Requirement Ratio (%) | Loss on Ignition (%) | Moisture Content (%) | 45 μm Sieving Residue (%) | Activity Index (%) | Specific Surface Area (m2/kg) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 d | 28 d | ||||||
| FA | 0.98 | 1.57 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 65 | 87 | 650 |
| GGBS | 0.95 | 0.61 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 79 | 111 | 450 |
| SF | - | 1.66 | 0.9 | 1.0 | - | 103 | 18,000 |
Chemical compositions of cementitious materials (wt.%).
| Materials | SiO2 | CaO | Al2O3 | Fe2O3 | MgO | SO3 | Na2O | K2O | f-CaO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cement | 21.09 | 62.50 | 4.34 | 2.81 | 1.81 | 2.87 | 0.15 | 0.62 | 0.67 |
| FA | 58.58 | 1.73 | 22.97 | 4.69 | 4.72 | 0.42 | 1.54 | 2.52 | 0.48 |
| GGBS | 36.61 | 39.47 | 11.79 | 1.23 | 8.94 | 0.23 | - | - | - |
| SF | 91.81 | 0.09 | 1.05 | 1.17 | 1.24 | 0.30 | 0.22 | 0.93 | - |
Physical characteristics of aggregates.
| Apparent Density (kg/m3) | Bulk Density (kg/m3) | Crushing Value Index (%) | Maximum Size (mm) | Fineness Modulus | Porosity (%) | Dust Content (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fine aggregates | 2590 | 1420 | - | 4.75 | 2.8 | 40.5 | 0.75 |
| Coarse aggregates | 2760 | 1450 | 8.8 | 25 | - | 42 | 0.1 |
Mixture proportions and compressive strength of concrete.
| Mix a | Cement (kg/m3) | Mineral Admixture Content (%) | Coarse Aggregates (kg/m3) | Fine Aggregates (kg/m3) | Water (kg/m3) | Compressive Strength (MPa) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FA | GGBS | SF | 3 d | 7 d | 28 d | 56 d | |||||
| OPC | 395 | - | - | - | 1032 | 811 | 162 | 30.8 | 45.6 | 50.5 | 53.0 |
| F20 | 316 | 79 | - | - | 1032 | 811 | 162 | 28.2 | 38.6 | 53.8 | 57.2 |
| G30 | 276.5 | - | 118.5 | - | 1032 | 811 | 162 | 26.2 | 43.4 | 54.9 | 58.2 |
| S5 | 375.25 | - | - | 19.75 | 1032 | 811 | 162 | 28.8 | 38.2 | 52.7 | 57.4 |
| F10G40 | 197.5 | 39.5 | 158 | - | 1032 | 811 | 162 | 29.2 | 44.7 | 54.2 | 60.3 |
| F20G30 | 197.5 | 79 | 118.5 | - | 1032 | 811 | 162 | 27.0 | 40.7 | 59.1 | 63.4 |
| F20G30S5 | 177.75 | 79 | 118.5 | 19.75 | 1032 | 811 | 162 | 30.2 | 44.9 | 58.4 | 62.6 |
a: OPC represents the content of cement is 100%; F represents FA; G represents GGBS; S represents SF. The number following the letter is the percentage of mineral admixtures used to replace the OPC. All of the concretes were prepared with a w/b ratio of 0.41.
Test design of different influential factors.
| Influential Factors | Description | Values or Conditions |
|---|---|---|
| sulfate concentration (%) | - | 0, 2.5, 5, 10, 15 |
| mineral addition content (%) | FA | 0, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 |
| GGBS | 0, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 | |
| SF | 0, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12 | |
| w/b ratio a | - | 0.34, 0.38, 0.41, 0.45, 0.5 |
| curing regime | standard curing (SC) | 20 ± 1 °C and RH ≥ 95% |
| fog curing (FC) | 20 ± 5 °C and RH ≥ 90% | |
| water curing (WC) | 22 ± 5 °C | |
| same condition curing (SCC) | 22 ± 5 °C and RH ≥ 65% |
a: The control w/b ratio was 0.41. The mix proportions of concrete with different w/b ratios are shown in Table 7. Moreover, five sulfate concentrations (0%, 2.5%, 5%, 10%, and 15%) were considered for each w/b ratio.
Mix proportions of concrete with different w/b ratios.
| w/b (%) | Cement (kg/m3) | Fine Aggregates (kg/m3) | Coarse Aggregates (kg/m3) | Superplasticizer (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.34 | 470 | 710 | 1110 | 1.15 |
| 0.38 | 420 | 738 | 1107 | 1.0 |
| 0.41 | 395 | 774 | 1069 | 0.95 |
| 0.45 | 350 | 803 | 1064 | 1.0 |
| 0.50 | 310 | 829 | 1056 | 1.1 |
Figure 2DW process with sulfate attack: (a) immersing; (b) drying.
Figure 3Evolution of of concrete with different mix proportions under DW cycles with SA (5% Na2SO4 solution).
Fitting parameter and R-square of the empirical formulas for DRC.
| Mix Proportions | Fitting Functions | R-Square |
|---|---|---|
| OPC |
| 0.935 |
| F20 |
| 0.952 |
| G30 |
| 0.975 |
| S5 |
| 0.948 |
| F10G40 |
| 0.956 |
| F20G30 |
| 0.976 |
| F20G30S5 |
| 0.969 |
Figure 4Effect of sulfate concentration on DRC of concrete containing different mineral admixtures exposed to DW cycles with SA: (a) OPC concrete; (b) FA concrete; (c) GGBS concrete; (d) SF concrete.
Figure 5Effect of the mineral admixture content on DRC: (a) FA content; (b) GGBS content; (c) SF content.
Figure 6Effect of the w/b ratio on DRC of the concrete exposed to sulfate solution under DW cycles.
Figure 7Effect of the curing regime on DRC.
Figure 8Flowchart for service life prediction of concrete subjected to DW cycles with SA.
Service life prediction results.
| Mix Proportion | Regression Constants of
| M a |
| Lifetime (Year) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | Tested b | Predicted c | Error d (%) | |||
| OPC | 1.1572 × 10−3 | 2.0402 × 10−5 | 0.632 | 0.5 | 100 | 102 | 2.0 |
| F20 | −1.1537 × 10−3 | 2.8055 × 10−5 | 0.632 | 0.5 | 113 | 124 | 9.8 |
| G30 | −5.5630 × 10−4 | 2.9112 × 10−5 | 0.632 | 0.5 | 104 | 115 | 11.0 |
| S5 | −2.0192 × 10−3 | 3.0053 × 10−5 | 0.632 | 0.5 | 120 | 107 | −10.7 |
| F10G40 | −8.8134 × 10−4 | 1.8192 × 10−5 | 0.632 | 0.5 | 140 | 127 | −9.0 |
| F20G30 | −1.7376 × 10−4 | 1.1776 × 10−5 | 0.632 | 0.5 | 158 | 134 | −15.5 |
| F20G30S5 | −6.8270 × 10−4 | 1.4922 × 10−5 | 0.632 | 0.5 | 152 | 135 | −11.0 |
a: The parameter m was calculated assuming the compressive strength of the OPC concrete shown in Table 5 reduced by 50% after 100 years’ cyclic sulfate corrosion in 5% Na2SO4 solution. b: The service lifetime was predicted based on the corresponding regression constants of the seven concrete mixtures listed in the first column in the table. c: The service lifetime was predicted based on the regression constants of OPC concrete (i.e., A = 1.1572 × 10−3 and B = 2.0402 × 10−5). d: Error (%) = ((Predicted lifetime − Tested lifetime)/Tested lifetime) × 100.