| Literature DB >> 36015514 |
Peng Zhang1, Wenshuai Wang2, Yajun Lv3, Zhen Gao2, Siyuan Dai2.
Abstract
Nano-particles and fibers-modified cementitious composite (NFCC) can greatly overcome the shortcomings of traditional cementitious materials, such as high brittleness and low toughness, and improve the durability of the composite, which in turn increases the service life of the structures. Additionally, the polymer coatings covering the surface of the composite can exert a good physical shielding effect on the external water, ions, and gases, so as to improve the permeability and chloride ion penetration resistance of the composite. In this study, the effect of three types of polymer coatings on the water contact angle, permeability resistance, and chloride ion penetration resistance of the NFCC with varied water-binder ratios were investigated. Three kinds of polymers (chlorinated rubber coating, polyurethane coating, and silane coating) were applied in two types of coatings, including single-layer and double-layer coatings. Three water-binder ratios of 35 wt.%, 40 wt.%, and 45 wt.% were used for the NFCC. The research results revealed that the surface of the NFCC treated with polymer coatings exhibited excellent hydrophobicity. The permeability height and chloride diffusion coefficient of the NFCC coated with different types of polymer coatings were 31-48% and 36-47% lower, respectively, than those of the NFCC without polymer coatings. The durability of the NFCC was further improved when the polymer coatings were applied to the surface in two-layer. Furthermore, it was discovered that increasing the water-binder ratio of the NFCC would lessen the positive impact of polymer coatings on the durability of NFCC.Entities:
Keywords: cementitious composites; chloride ion penetration; permeability; polymer coating; water contact angle
Year: 2022 PMID: 36015514 PMCID: PMC9415372 DOI: 10.3390/polym14163258
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Figure 1Morphology of fly ash.
Chemical compositions of fly ash and cement [37].
| Chemical Compositions (wt.%) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CaO | SiO2 | Al2O3 | Fe2O3 | MgO | Na2O | K2O | SO3 | |
| Fly ash | 9.12 | 52.12 | 17.86 | 6.57 | 3.26 | 2.38 | 2.05 | 0.23 |
| Cement | 63.14 | 21.05 | 5.28 | 2.57 | 3.58 | 0.17 | 0.58 | 2.39 |
Physical parameters of PVA fiber [38].
| Fiber Length (mm) | Fiber Diameter (μm) | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Dry Fracture Elongation (%) | Water Absorption (%) | Alkali Resistance (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | 40 | 1400 | 17 | <1 | 98 |
Physical parameters of nano-SiO2 [39].
| Specific Surface Area (m2/g) | SiO2 Content (%) | Average Particle Size (nm) | pH Value | Bulk Density (g/cm3) | Heating Loss (%) | Ignition Loss (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 200 | 99.5 | 30 | 6 | 0.055 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Mixing proportions of the NFCC.
| Group | Water–Binder Ratio (wt.%) | Cement (kg/m3) | Fly Ash (kg/m3) | Nano-SiO2 (kg/m3) | PVA Fiber (kg/m3) | Silica Sand (kg/m3) | Water-Reducingagent (wt.%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 35 | 637 | 350 | 13 | 8.19 | 500 | 3 |
| B | 40 | 637 | 350 | 13 | 8.19 | 500 | 1.3 |
| C | 45 | 637 | 350 | 13 | 8.19 | 500 | — |
Polymer coating types and layers used for the specimens.
| Group | Type of Coating | Number of Layers |
|---|---|---|
| A | Chlorinated rubber coating | One |
| Polyurethane coating | ||
| Silane coating | ||
| B | Chlorinated rubber coating | One |
| Polyurethane coating | ||
| Silane coating | ||
| C | Chlorinated rubber coating | One |
| Polyurethane coating | ||
| Silane coating |
Figure 2Polymer coating thickness. (a) Coating thickness of the chlorinated; (b) Coating thickness of silane rubber and polyurethane coatings.
Figure 3Principle of calculating water contact angle by measuring height method.
Figure 4Micro sampler.
Figure 5USB digital microscope.
Figure 6Instrument of permeability resistance of concrete.
Figure 7Instrument of vacuum water saturation.
Figure 8Tank of test.
Figure 9Overall device of the test.
Figure 10Microdroplet morphology and water contact angle of specimens (water–binder ratio 35 wt.%).
Figure 11Permeability height of protective specimens with different water–binder ratios.
Figure 12Chloride ion diffusion coefficient of the composites with different water–binder ratios coated by different layers.