journal article·2023-12

Sulfate Resistance of Novel Alkali-Activated Filling Grout for Shield Tunnels: Comparison with Typical OPC-Based Filling Grout

Weilong Song, Fusheng Zha, Zhiduo Zhu, Fei Wang

Publisher page

Abstract

The novel alkali-activated filling grout (AAG) for shield tunnels requires detailed understanding of its sulfate resistance prior to practical application. This paper presents a comparative study of the sulfate resistance of a typical ordinary portland cement (OPC)-based grout and two groups of representative AAG formulated with industrial by-products including fly ash, ground granulated blast-furnace slag, and steel slag as the solid precursors. In the study, the grout samples after 28 days of standard curing were exposed to the 5% by weight Na2SO4 (pH = 7.92) and 5% by weight MgSO4 (pH = 7.25) solutions, respectively, to simulate different cases of external sulfate erosion. The sulfate resistance and deterioration mechanism of various grout samples were evaluated and analyzed via multitechnical examinations including visual appearance, mass loss, compressive/flexural strength, strength retention coefficient, mineral composition, microstructure morphology, and pore-size distribution at different test ages. The experimental results indicated that whether under Na2SO4 or MgSO4 erosion, AAG always exhibited more slight deterioration than the OPC-based grout in terms of visual appearance, mass loss, and strength reduction. The reasons for these observations are as follows. The main gel products of AAG were mainly C-(A)-S-H and N-A-S-H, which interweaved and coexisted to form a denser matrix structure than that of the OPC-based grout. The resulting poorer permeability of the AAG matrix was not conducive to the ion exchange between the matrix and the environmental solution. In addition, compared with the OPC-based grout, the lower calcium content and more stable bonded aluminum phases in AGG limited the formation of expansive products responsible for microcracking under sulfate erosion. MgSO4 could cause more severe deterioration than Na2SO4, mainly due to the promotion of decalcification of calcium-containing phases by the presence of Mg2+ and the resulting gel products harmful to the matrix. This study demonstrated the excellent sulfate resistance of AAG, which can provide scientific basis for its future engineering application.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Concrete and Cement Materials Research · Innovative concrete reinforcement materials · Grouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Lecturer, College of Civil Engineering, Hefei Univ. of Technology, Hefei, Anhui 230009, China; formerly, Ph.D. Candidate, School of Transportation, Southeast Univ., Nanjing, Jiangsu 211189, China.

Professor, School of Resource and Environmental Engineering, Hefei Univ. of Technology, Hefei, Anhui 230009, China.

Professor, School of Transportation, Southeast Univ., Nanjing, Jiangsu 211189, China (corresponding author).

Senior Engineer, Anhui Province Key Laboratory of Green Building and Assembly Construction, Anhui Institute of Building Research & Design, Hefei, Anhui 230031, China.

References (65)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.07610.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.076 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.06.02510.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.06.025 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2022.10698410.1016/j.cemconres.2022.106984 ↗
4. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000424010.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0004240 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.10386110.1016/j.jobe.2021.103861 ↗
6. Allahverdi, A., H. Hashemi, and M. Mahinroosta. 2020. “Resistance of alkali-activated slag cement against sodium sulfate.” Iran. J. Mater. Sci. Eng. 17 (1): 23–34. https://doi.org/10.22068/ijmse.17.1.23.
7. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000316110.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003161 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.10320510.1016/j.jobe.2021.103205 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.09.00210.1016/j.cemconres.2004.09.002 ↗
10. 10.1016/S0008-8846(01)00659-710.1016/S0008-8846(01)00659-7 ↗
11. 10.1617/s11527-014-0325-410.1617/s11527-014-0325-4 ↗
12. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000285710.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002857 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.apt.2014.02.00710.1016/j.apt.2014.02.007 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.10359010.1016/j.jobe.2021.103590 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.matdes.2015.12.07010.1016/j.matdes.2015.12.070 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.12467110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124671 ↗
17. de Oliveira, L. B., A. R. G. de Azevedo, M. T. Marvila, E. C. Pereira, R. Fediuk, and C. M. F. Vieira. 2022. “Durability of geopolymers with industrial waste.” Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 16 (Jun): e00839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00839.
18. Diaz Caselles, L., J. Hot, F. Cassagnabere, and M. Cyr. 2021. “External sulfate attack: Comparison of several alternative binders.” Mater. Struct. 54 (Dec): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-021-01813-8.10.1617/s11527-021-01813-8 ↗
19. 10.1139/cgj-2020-068610.1139/cgj-2020-0686 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.06.21210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.06.212 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.10381010.1016/j.jobe.2021.103810 ↗
22. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000139210.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001392 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.14010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.140 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.03410.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.034 ↗
25. 10.1080/15732479.2019.167434310.1080/15732479.2019.1674343 ↗
26. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000213110.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002131 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.13515910.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135159 ↗
28. 10.1617/s11527-012-9906-210.1617/s11527-012-9906-2 ↗
29. 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.000231210.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0002312 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.11.13610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.11.136 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.08.01310.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.08.013 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.01.12910.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.01.129 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2020.10389310.1016/j.cemconcomp.2020.103893 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2021.12531110.1016/j.matchemphys.2021.125311 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.powtec.2021.07.04610.1016/j.powtec.2021.07.046 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.10.00110.1016/j.cemconres.2017.10.001 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.fuel.2012.05.03410.1016/j.fuel.2012.05.034 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2015.10.02010.1016/j.cemconcomp.2015.10.020 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.12028110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120281 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.12010.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.120 ↗
41. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000404710.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0004047 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2014.06.00210.1016/j.cemconres.2014.06.002 ↗
43. Peila, D., L. Borio, and S. Pelizza. 2011. “The behaviour of a two-component back-filling grout used in a tunnel-boring machine.” Acta Geotech. Slov. 8 (1): 5–15.
44. Peng, H., C. Cui, C. S. Cai, S. L. Li, and J. W. Zhao. 2016. “Mechanism of activator concentration influencing properties of metakaolin-based geopolymer.” [In Chinese.] Acta Materiae Compositae Sin. 33 (12): 2952–2960. https://doi.org/10.13801/j.cnki.fhclxb.20160315.003.
45. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.02.00910.1016/j.cemconres.2017.02.009 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.micromeso.2016.07.00510.1016/j.micromeso.2016.07.005 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.14910.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.149 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.01.01010.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.01.010 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.12484210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124842 ↗
50. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000217510.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002175 ↗
51. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.03.01610.1016/j.cemconres.2011.03.016 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.11745510.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117455 ↗
53. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.12562010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125620 ↗
54. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.11981410.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119814 ↗
55. Tu P. 2012. “Durability experiment and evaluation theory of grouting concretion stone.” [In Chinese.] Ph.D. dissertation School of Civil Engineering Central South Univ.
56. 10.1007/s13369-021-06109-110.1007/s13369-021-06109-1 ↗
57. 10.1016/j.tust.2022.10467910.1016/j.tust.2022.104679 ↗
58. 10.1016/j.tust.2022.10464610.1016/j.tust.2022.104646 ↗
59. 10.3390/su1203101710.3390/su12031017 ↗
60. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000446610.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0004466 ↗
61. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.10586810.1016/j.cemconres.2019.105868 ↗
62. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000389310.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003893 ↗
63. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.12863110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.128631 ↗
64. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.01210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.012 ↗
65. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000423310.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0004233 ↗