Advertisement

INAE Letters

pp 1–12 | Cite as

Dimensional Stability and Microstructural Properties of Cements with Different C3A Contents

  • Gökhan Kaplan
  • A. Uğur Öztürk
Original Article
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

Concrete and reinforced-concrete structures are exposed to water loss and chemical effects which lead to dimensional changes. Used as a binding material in concrete production, cement’s physical and chemical properties play an important role in this process. Especially the C3S content and C3A content of cement influence the properties of concrete such as shrinkage and chemical resistance. In this study, cements were produced using four different clinkers with different chemical compositions. Properties such as drying shrinkage, mechanical properties, sulfate resistance (10% Na2SO4–MgSO4), and microstructure were explored up to the 365th day of the production of the cements. It was observed that cements with a higher C3A content (produced using especially the Portland cement) shrank more in the water. It was found that Cement B which shrank more in the water, shrank less when stored at room temperature. Cements with higher C3S content contribute greatly to the early age strength. Cements with higher C2S content, on the other hand, offer increased strength starting from the 90th day up to 365th day. Cement C with the lowest C3A content (3.37%) was found to be more suitable in terms of its sodium and magnesium sulfate resistance. Cements stored in sulfate proved to have increased expansion reactions generally after the 210th day. Increased C3S/C3A ratio also increases the sulfate resistance of cements. Weight loss was the case under the effect of magnesium sulfate while expansion was increased under effect sodium sulfate conditions. Thaumasite damage was observed in cement pastes stored in magnesium sulfate at 20 °C as CO2 available in the water was dissolved. Nevertheless, cement’s resistance class is more important than the C3A content when the cement is exposed to the effects of magnesium sulfate. Therefore, it is recommended for the future research to explore the limitation of C3S content in cements exposed to magnesium sulfate.

Keywords

Clinker Cement Durability Microstructure Thaumasite 

References

  1. ACI 201.2R (2008) Guide to durable concrete. Reported by ACI Committee 201. American Concrete Institute, Farmington HillsGoogle Scholar
  2. Akoz F, Turker F, Koral S, Yuzer N (1995) Effects of sodium sulfate concentration on the sulfate resistance of mortars with and without silica fume. Cement Concr Res 25(6):1360–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akyuncu V, Sumer M (2011) The examination of comparison of mechanic and durability properties with F and C type fly ash cement produced by substituting concrete. University of Sakarya, Institute of Science, Adapazarı, pp 125–130Google Scholar
  4. Al-Amoudi OSB (2002) Attack on plain and blended cements exposed to aggressive sulfate environments. Cem Concr Compos 24(3–4):305–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atahan HN, Arslan KM (2016) Improved durability of cement mortars exposed to external sulfate attack: the role of nano & micro additives. Sustain Cities Soc 22:40–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellmann F, Moser B, Stark J (2006) Influence of sulfate solution on the formation of gypsum in sulfate resistance test specimen. Cem Concr Res 36:358–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bensted J, Munn J (2000) A discussion of the paper “Durability of the hydrated limestone–silica fume Portland cement mortars under sulphate attack” by J. Zeliæ, R. Krstuloviæ, E. Tkalčec and P. Krolo1. Cem Concr Res 30(8):1333–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cefis Nicola, Comi Claudia (2017) Chemo-mechanical modelling of the external sulfate attack in concrete. Cem Concr Res 93:57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen J-K, Jiang M-Q (2009) Long-term evolution of delayed ettringite and gypsum in Portland cement mortars under sulfate erosion. Constr Build Mater 23(2):812–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collepardi M (2001) Ettringite formation and sulfate attack on concrete. In: Proceeding of fifth CANMET/ACI international symposium on recent advances in concrete technology Singapore, SP 200, pp. 21–38 (29 July–1 August)Google Scholar
  11. CSA A23.1/23.2 (2014) Concrete materials and methods of concreteconstruction/methods of test and standard practices for concrete. Canadian Standards Association, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  12. El-Hachem R, Rozière E, Grondin F, Loukili A (2012) Multi-criteria analysis of the mechanism of degradation of Portland cement based mortars exposed to external sulphate attack. Cem Concr Res 42:1327–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. EN 206–1 (2013) Concrete—specification, performance, production and conformity. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaze ME, Crammond NJ (2000) The formation of thaumasite in a cement: lime: sand mortar exposed to cold magnesium and potassium sulfate solutions. Cem Concr Compos 22(3):209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gollop RS, Taylor HFW (1992) Microstructural and microanalytical studies of sulfate attack. I. Ordinary Portland cement paste. Cem Concr Res 22(6):1027–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. González M, Irassar E (1998) Effect of limestone filler on the sulfate resistance of low C3A Portland cement. Cem Concr Res 28(11):1655–1667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hartshorn SA, Sharp LH, Swamy RN (1999) Thaumasite formation in Portlandlimestone cement pastes. Cem Concr Res 29(8):1331–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hashemi SMS (2014) Experimental study on mechanical properties of different lightweight aggregate concretes. Eng Solid Mech 2(3):201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heidari-Rarani M, Aliha MRM, Shokrieh MM, Ayatollahi MR (2014) Mechanical durability of an optimized polymer concrete under various thermal cyclic loadings—an experimental study. Constr Build Mater 64:308–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hekal EE, Kishar E, Mostafa H (2002) Magnesium sulfate attack on hardened blended cement pastes under different circumstances. Cem Concr Res 32(9):1421–1427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hobbs DW (2003) Thaumasite sulfate attack in field and laboratory concretes: implications for specifications. Cem Concr Compos 25(8):1195–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Horkoss Sayed, Escadeillas Gilles, Rizk Toufic, Lteif Roger (2016) The effect of the source of cement SO3 on the expansion of mortars. Case Stud Constr Mater 4:62–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hossack AM, Thomas MDA (2015) The effect of temperature on the rate of sulfate attack of Portland cement blended mortars in Na2SO4 solution. Cem Concr Res 73:136–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Irassar EF (2009) Sulfate attack on cementitious materials containing limestone filler—a review. Cem Concr Res 39(3):241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jallad KN, Santhanam M, Cohen MD (2003) Stability and reactivity of thaumasite at different pH levels. Cem Concr Res 33(3):433–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu Z, Deng D, De Schutter G, Yu Z (2013) The effect of MgSO4 on thaumasite formation. Cement Concr Compos 35:102–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ogawa S, Nozaki T, Yamada K, Hirao H, Hooton RD (2012) Improvement on sulfate resistance of blended cement with high alumina slag. Cem Concr Res 42:244–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Park Y-S, Suh J-K, Lee J-H, Shin Y-S (1999) Strength deterioration of high strength concrete in sulfate environment. Cem Concr Res 29(9):1397–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Quennoz A, Karen L (2013) Scrivener, Interactions between alite and C3A-gypsum hydrations in model cements. Cem Concr Res 44:46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sahmaran M, Kasap O, Duru K, Yaman IO (2007) Effects of mix composition and water–cement ratio on the sulfate resistance of blended cements. Cement Concr Compos 29(3):159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Santhanam M, Cohen MD, Olek J (2002a) Mechanism of sulfate attack: a fresh look part 1: summary of experimental results. Cem Concr Res 32:915–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Santhanam M, Cohen MD, Olek J (2002b) Modeling the effects of solution temperature and concentration during sulfate attack on cement mortars. Cem Concr Res 32:585–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wyrzykowski M, Trtik P, Münch B, Weiss J, Vontobel P, Lura P (2015) Plastic shrinkage of mortars with shrinkage reducing admixture and lightweight aggregates studied by neutron tomography. Cem Concr Res 73:238–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yildirim K, Sumer M (2013) Effects of sodium chloride and magnesium sulfate concentration on the durability of cement mortar with and without fly ash. Compos Part B 52:56–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhang W, Hama Y, Na SH (2015) Drying shrinkage and microstructure characteristics of mortar incorporating ground granulated blast furnace slag and shrinkage reducing admixture. Constr Build Mater 93:267–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhu Wen, Wei Jiangxiong, Li Fangxian, Zhang Tongsheng, Chen Yang, Jie Hu, Qijun Yu (2016) Understanding restraint effect of coarse aggregate on the drying shrinkage of self-compacting concrete. Constr Build Mater 114:458–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian National Academy of Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and ArchitectureKastamonu UniversityKastamonuTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringManisa Celal Bayar UniversityManisaTurkey

Personalised recommendations