Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T19:38:27.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cementitious Blends of Portland Cement with Calcium Sulphate, Fly Ash and Cupola Slag.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2012

Yared E. Rodríguez-Mendoza
Affiliation:
Cinvestav IPN Unidad Saltillo, Mexico
Antonio F Fuentes
Affiliation:
Cinvestav IPN Unidad Saltillo, Mexico
J Iván Escalante-García
Affiliation:
Cinvestav IPN Unidad Saltillo, Mexico
Get access

Abstract

This investigation is on alternative cementitious materials of low cost, energy and environmental emissions. Portland cement (PC) was replaced by different types of calcium sulphate (hemihydrate HH, or anhydrite AN), fly ash (PFA) and cupola slag (CS) from an iron foundry. Pastes of blends of (HH or AN) – CS – PC and (HH or AN) – PFA – PC were characterized. The compositions varied within the ranges of 0 – 35% PC, 15 – 80% HH or AN, 10 – 80% CS and 10 – 80% PFA. The water/solids ratio was kept at 0.45 for HH blends and 0.37 for those of AN. The pastes were cured in dry and for some time under water. Selected blends of CS were repeated with blast furnace slag (BFS) for comparison. CS showed better results over PFA and less than BFS, perhaps as derived from its chemical composition, phase configuration and physical characteristics. These and other results of microstructural characterization will be discussed. This work is part of a broader research on the development of alternative environment friendly hydraulic composite cements of Portland cement highly replaced by calcium sulphate and industrial byproducts.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Damtoft, J.S., Lukasik, J., Herfort, D., Sorrentino, D., Gartner, E.M., Cement and Concrete Research 38, 115127 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arup/ Bill Dunster Architects, UK Housing and Climate Change – Heavyweight versus lightweight construction, 2004.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J.P., Concrete for energy-efficient buildings: The benefits of thermal mass, European Concrete Platform, 2007.Google Scholar
Lawrence, C. D., The Production of Low-Energy Cements in Lea’s Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, edited by Hewlett, P. C., 2004, Elsevier Science and Technology Books.Google Scholar
Odler, I., Special inorganic cements, Modern Concrete Technology Series, 2000, Vol 8, E&FN SPON.Google Scholar
Yan, P. and You, Y., Cement and Concrete Research 28(1), 135140 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escalante-García, J.I., Rios-Escobar, M., Gorokhovsky, A., Fuentes, A. F., Cement Concrete Composites 30, 8896 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magallanes, R.X., Escalante, J.I., Gorokhovsky, A., Construction and Building Materials 23, 12981305 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aderibigbe, D.A., Ojobo, A.E., Conservation and Recycling 5(4), 203208 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escalante, J.I., Gómez, L.Y., Johal, J.J., Mendoza, G., Mancha, H., Méndez, J., Cement and Concrete Research 31, 14031409 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escalante, J.I., Espinoza, L.J., Gorokhovsky, A, Gomez, L.Y., Construction Building Materials 23, 25112517 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraire, P.E., Escalante, J.I., Gorokhovsky, A., Cement and Concrete Research 36, 10481055 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ASTM C204, Annual book of ASTM standards, Cements, lime and gypsum, vol. 04.01, USA (1995).Google Scholar
Juenger, M.C.G., Winnefeld, F., Provis, J.L., Ideker, J.H., Cement and Concrete Research 41, 12321243 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar