Sodium sulphate attack on blended cements under different exposure conditions
Source abstract
Abstract
The sulphate resistance of ordinary Portland cement, sulphate-resistant Portland cement, and blended cements with different proportions of natural pozzolan and low-lime fly ash were compared. Plain and blended cement mortar specimens were prepared and stored under three different conditions: (a) continuous curing in lime-saturated water, (b) continuous exposure to 5% Na2SO4 solution at room temperature, and (c) cyclic exposure to 5% Na2SO4 solution at room temperature in which the cycle consisted of immersion and drying exposures (each cycle was composed of immersion in 5% Na2SO4 solution for 24 h at 23 ± 2°C, oven drying at 50°C for 23 h, and cooling in air at 23 ± 2°C for 1 h). The sulphate resistance of the cements was evaluated from compressive strength and length change of mortar specimens after up to 1 year of exposure. Microstructural investigations such as X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray analysis were also used to support the explanation of deterioration. This study revealed that under continuous sodium sulphate exposure the length changes of blended cements were less than those of sulphate-resistant Portland cement with 3.6% C3A content. However, for the mortars exposed to sulphate attack and cycles of immersion and drying exposures, sulphate-resistant Portland cement was found to perform better than blended cements when compressive strengths were considered
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Concrete and Cement Materials Research · Building materials and conservation · Innovative concrete reinforcement materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109–2125 USA
References (32)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/S0008-8846(02)00801-310.1016/S0008-8846(02)00801-3 ↗
2. 10.1016/0008-8846(95)00195-610.1016/0008-8846(95)00195-6 ↗
3. 10.1016/S0008-8846(01)00510-510.1016/S0008-8846(01)00510-5 ↗
4. Skalny J. · 2003
5. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.04.00410.1016/j.cemconres.2004.04.004 ↗
6. 10.1016/0008-8846(86)90006-210.1016/0008-8846(86)90006-2 ↗
7. 10.1016/0008-8846(83)90040-610.1016/0008-8846(83)90040-6 ↗
8. Cao H. T. · 1997 · 263
9. Glasser F. P. · 1998 · 99
10. Mehta P. K. · 1993
11. Mehta P. K. · Concrete International · 2000 · 22 · 57
12. Irassar E. F. · 1997 · 507
13. American Society for Testing and Materials · 2005
14. American Society for Testing and Materials · 2004
15. American Society for Testing and Materials · 2000
16. American Society for Testing and Materials · 2001
17. American Society for Testing and Materials · 2003
18. 10.1680/adcr.2003.15.3.9110.1680/adcr.2003.15.3.91 ↗
19. 10.1016/S0958-9465(02)00083-510.1016/S0958-9465(02)00083-5 ↗
20. Sahmaran M. · Cement and Concrete World · 2006 · 10 · 56
21. Mehta P. K. · ACI Materials Journal · 1986 · 83 · 994
22. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2005.09.00110.1016/j.cemconcomp.2005.09.001 ↗
23. Al-Amoudi O. S. B. · ACI Materials Journal · 1995 · 92 · 15
24. Cohen M. D. · ACI Materials Journal · 1991 · 88 · 62
25. Kalousekand G. L. · ACI Journal · 1970 · 67 · 187
26. 10.1016/0008-8846(81)90030-210.1016/0008-8846(81)90030-2 ↗
27. 10.1016/0008-8846(85)90091-210.1016/0008-8846(85)90091-2 ↗
28. 10.1016/S0958-9465(01)00082-810.1016/S0958-9465(01)00082-8 ↗
29. 10.1016/S0008-8846(99)00068-X10.1016/S0008-8846(99)00068-X ↗
30. Haynes H. · Concrete International · 2002 · 24 · 64
31. Young J. F. · Concrete International · 1998 · 20 · 7
32. Skalny J. · 1999 · 49