| Literature DB >> 35888354 |
Shanglai Liu1, Yannian Zhang2, Bonan Liu2, Zhen Zou2, Qiang Liu2, Yina Teng3, Lei V Zhang4,5.
Abstract
The increasing concern for decarbonization and sustainability in construction materials is calling for green binders to partially replace cement since its production is responsible for approximately 8% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), including fly ash, slag, silica fume, etc., can be used as a partial replacement for ordinary Portland cement (OPC) owing to reduced carbon dioxide emissions associated with OPC production. This study aims to investigate the sustainable use of waste oyster shell powder (OSP)-lithium slag (LS)-ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) ternary SCM system in green concrete. The effect of ternary SCMs to OPC ratio (0%, 10%, 20%, and 30%) on compressive strength and permeability of the green concrete were studied. The reaction products of the concrete containing OSP-LS-GGBFS SCM system were characterized by SEM and thermogravimetric analyses. The results obtained from this study revealed that the compressive strength of concrete mixed with ternary SCMs are improved compared with the reference specimens. The OSP-LS-GGBFS ternary SCMs-based mortars exhibited a lower porosity and permeability compared to the control specimens. However, when the substitution rate was 30%, the two parameters showed a decline. In addition, the samples incorporating ternary SCMs had a more refined pore structure and lower permeability than that of specimens adding OSP alone. This work expands the possibility of valorization of OSP for sustainable construction materials.Entities:
Keywords: compressive strength; coupling effect; oyster shell powder; permeability; supplementary cementitious materials
Year: 2022 PMID: 35888354 PMCID: PMC9317286 DOI: 10.3390/ma15144886
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Chemical composition and content of materials (mass fraction/%).
| SiO2 | Al2O3 | CaO | SO3 | MgO | Fe2O3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OSP | 16.5% | 0.3% | 46.6% | 0.05% | 36.3% | 0.2% |
| LS | 54.5% | 25.4% | 6.4% | 10.2% | 0.6% | 0.6% |
| GGBFS | 30.7% | 15.9% | 42.3% | 1.8% | 6.7% | 1.2% |
| Cement | 22.6% | 8.3% | 61.1% | 2.4% | 1.9% | 2.6% |
The specific surface area of the materials.
| Materials | OSP | LS | GGBFS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specific surface/m2 · kg−1 | 2057 | 13,627 | 1206 |
Figure 1Particle size distribution of materials.
Figure 2X-ray diffraction patterns of OSP.
Cement mortar ratio of group M.
| Serial | SCMs | Cement/g | OSP/g | LS/g | GGBFS/g | Standard Sand/g | Water/mL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M-1 | 20% | 360 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 225 |
| M-2 | 20% | 360 | 45 | 45 | 0 | 1350 | 225 |
| M-3 | 20% | 360 | 45 | 0 | 45 | 1350 | 225 |
| M-4 | 20% | 360 | 45 | 22.5 | 22.5 | 1350 | 225 |
Cement mortar ratio of group D.
| Serial | SCMs | Cement/g | OSP/g | LS/g | GGBFS/g | Standard Sand/g | Water/mL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D-0 | 0 | 450 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1350 | 225 |
| D-10 | 10% | 405 | 22.5 | 11.3 | 11.3 | 1350 | 225 |
| D-20 | 20% | 360 | 45 | 22.5 | 22.5 | 1350 | 225 |
| D-30 | 30% | 315 | 67.5 | 33.8 | 33.8 | 1350 | 225 |
Chloride permeability rating.
| Chloride Permeability | Charge (Coulombs) |
|---|---|
| High | >4000 |
| Moderate | 2000–4000 |
| Low | 1000–2000 |
| Very low | 100–1000 |
Figure 3Compressive strength tests. (a) The coupling effect of a ternary system, (b) replacement ratios of the composite system.
Figure 4TG test result of each experimental group. (a) M−1 group; (b) M−2 group; (c) M−3 group; (d) M−4 group; (e) D−0 group; (f) D−10 group; (g) D−20 group; (h) D−30 group.
TG test the yield table of each substance.
| Serial | CH to Take Off the Water | Amount of CaCO3 | C-S-H | H2O Content | CH Content |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D-0 | 3.6% | 1.4% | 13.3% | 17.3% | 18% |
| D-10 | 2.8% | 3.2% | 13.7% | 17.4% | 18.8% |
| D-20 | 3.7% | 3.8% | 13.5% | 18.5% | 23.9% |
| D-30 | 5% | 3.8% | 13.2% | 19.5% | 29.2% |
| M-1 | 7.3% | 5.3% | 12.5% | 21.3% | 42.1% |
| M-2 | 5.2% | 4.3% | 14.5% | 20.9% | 31.2% |
| M-3 | 6% | 4.9% | 13.5% | 20.9% | 35.8% |
Figure 5SEM images of hydration products. (a) D−0 group; (b) D−20 group; (c) M−1 group.
Figure 6Water absorption in mortars.
Figure 7RCPT test results for part of the mortars.
Figure 8Pore size distributions in mortar samples at 28 days (mL/g). (a) Pore distribution curves under different systems; (b) Pore distribution curves under different cement replacement ratios.
Pore characteristic parameter in mortar samples at 28 days.
| Serial | Total Pore Volume (ml/g) | Maximum Aperture/μm | Pore Size Distribution | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–0.02 μm | 0.02–0.1 μm | 0.1–0.2 μm | >0.2 μm | |||
| D-0 | 0.151 | 0.095 | 1.001 | 0.542 | 0.073 | 0.342 |
| D-10 | 0.139 | 0.069 | 0.952 | 0.518 | 0.084 | 0.396 |
| D-20 | 0.122 | 0.056 | 0.747 | 0.341 | 0.049 | 0.301 |
| D-30 | 0.154 | 0.051 | 0.983 | 0.441 | 0.063 | 0.344 |
| M-1 | 0.148 | 0.055 | 1.001 | 0.546 | 0.078 | 0.332 |
| M-2 | 0.164 | 0.071 | 1.071 | 0.544 | 0.085 | 0.428 |
| M-3 | 0.145 | 0.062 | 0.961 | 0.462 | 0.055 | 0.282 |
| M-4 | 0.122 | 0.056 | 0.747 | 0.341 | 0.049 | 0.301 |