| Literature DB >> 36234298 |
Chao Liang1,2, Yongming Xing1, Xiaohu Hou3.
Abstract
In this paper, the influence of the substitution rate of metakaolin (MK) and ultrafine fly ash (UFA) on the hydration degree, the micromechanical properties, the pore size distribution, and the corresponding fractal dimension of composite cement-based material was investigated under high-temperature steam curing. Furthermore, Thermogravimetric, Nanoindentation, and low-field nuclear magnetic resonance tests were used to explore the influencing factors of pore size distribution and its corresponding multi-fractal dimension. Finally, the correlations among the pore size distribution, related fractal dimensions, and compression strength were analyzed. Results indicate that the MK-UFA cement ternary cementation system (TCS) can improve the compressive strength and fluidity of samples and enhance the hydration degree and micromechanical properties of the cementitious system. TCS effectively refines the pore size and increases microporosity. In addition, micropore and its fractal dimension have a stronger correlation with the compressive strength of composite cement-based materials. Furthermore, the micro-fractal dimensions can better reflect the essential characteristics of the composite cementitious system. The higher the degree of hydration of the cementitious system and the nanomechanical properties of the C-(A)-S-H gel, the lower the micro-fractal dimension. Finally, the GM (1,3) prediction model of compressive strength, micro-fractal dimension, and microporosity are established based on the grey relational theory.Entities:
Keywords: composite cement-based material; compressive strength; grey relevance prediction; high-temperature steam curing; low-field nuclear magnetic resonance; multi-fractal dimension; nanoindentation
Year: 2022 PMID: 36234298 PMCID: PMC9573449 DOI: 10.3390/ma15196956
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Chemical composition of raw materials wt.
| Raw Material | CaO | SiO2 | MgO | Al2O3 | Fe2O3 | Na2O | LOI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cement | 62.68 | 21.28 | 3.61 | 4.82 | 4.34 | 0.41 | 2.86 |
| Metakaolin | 0.2 | 50 | 0.09 | 46 | 2.6 | 0.4 | 0.71 |
| Fly ash | 17.6 | 65.67 | 0.08 | 6.84 | 4.59 | 1.7 | 3.88 |
Mortar mix proportions wt.
| Sample | PC | MK | UFA | Sand | Water |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CM00 | 1.00 | - | - | 3.00 | 0.18 |
| CM10 | 0.90 | 0.10 | - | 3.00 | 0.18 |
| CM20 | 0.80 | 0.2 | - | 3.00 | 0.18 |
| CM30 | 0.70 | 0.30 | - | 3.00 | 0.18 |
| CMF105 | 0.85 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 3.00 | 0.18 |
| CMF2010 | 0.70 | 0.20 | 0.10 | 3.00 | 0.18 |
| CMF3015 | 0.65 | 0.30 | 0.15 | 3.00 | 0.18 |
Figure 1(a) Fluidity performance and (b) compressive strength of blend composites.
Figure 2(a) Thermogravimetric analyses curve (TG and DTG) and (b) hydration products analysis.
Figure 3Nanoindentation point Gaussian fitting results of sample (a) CM006 and (b) CMF20106, and (c) Volume fraction and (d) Gaussian fitting average elastic modulus value of C-(A)-S-H.
Figure 4(a) NMR pore size distribution and (b) porosity of blended paste composites.
Variation of pore size distribution with curing time.
| Sample | Pore Category | 1 Day | 3 Day | 6 Day |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CM00 | Total porosity | 2.620 | 1.898 | 1.978 |
| Microporosity | 2.008 | 1.411 | 1.817 | |
| Mesoporosity | 0.415 | 0.345 | 0.128 | |
| Macroporosity | 0.189 | 0.143 | 0.032 | |
| CM30 | Total porosity | 11.181 | 11.756 | 13.465 |
| Microporosity | 10.997 | 11.585 | 13.346 | |
| Mesoporosity | 0.154 | 0.143 | 0.107 | |
| Macroporosity | 0.031 | 0.029 | 0.010 |
Figure 5(a) Pore size distribution of paste blends and (b) relationship between micropority and bound water.
Figure 6(a–f) Multi-fractal characteristics for blended composites.
Figure 7Relationship between (a) compressive strength and microporosity and (b) compressive strength and micro-fractal dimension.
Prediction Value and Error check.
| Code | Compressive Strength Value (MPa) | Residual (MPa) | Relative Error (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test Values | Predicative Values | |||
| 1 | 88.26 | 88.26 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 2 | 85.15 | 80.82 | −4.33 | 4.33 |
| 3 | 81.81 | 79.29 | −2.58 | 2.58 |
| 4 | 80.01 | 81.56 | 1.56 | 1.56 |
| 5 | 77.23 | 79.12 | 1.89 | 1.89 |
| 6 | 76.38 | 76.94 | 0.64 | 0.64 |
| 7 | 73.75 | 75.60 | 1.85 | 1.85 |
| 8 | 71.18 | 70.47 | −0.71 | 0.71 |
| 9 | 68.92 | 71.82 | 2.90 | 2.90 |
| 10 | 65.43 | 67.41 | 2.41 | 2.41 |
| 11 | 62.75 | 64.20 | 1.45 | 1.45 |
| 12 | 58.89 | 61.53 | 2.63 | 2.63 |
| Average Relative Error | 1.91% | |||