Location
China,Beijing
Keywords
grinded tuff; microscopic morphology; hydration properties; hydration heat release velocity; chemical bound water content
Abstract
The chemical composition and microscopic morphology characteristics of grinded tuff(GT) and fly ash(FA) were compared and analyzed in the paper. The chemical bound water content and hydration heat were tested for investigating the hydration properties of grinded tuff-cement cementitious material system (GTCS) and fly ash-cement cementitious material system (FACS). The results shown that, the chemical composition of GT was similar with that of FA, however the loss on ignition of the GT was obviously higher than FA. The microstructure of the GT particles was polygonal and irregular, while the microstructure of FA particles were mostly smooth spheres. The hydrated heat evolution rules of GTCS and FACS were different, both GTCS and FACS had four hydration periods, but the second acceleration period of FACS was small and flat, without obviously peak, the second acceleration period of GTCS was similar to cement cementitious material system, with an obviously peak. The steady state period of FACS was significantly longer than that of the GTCS. Furthermore, the chemical bound water content of GTCS was higher before 7d and lower after 28d compared with FACS.
Study on hydration properties of grinded tuff-cement cementitious material system
China,Beijing
The chemical composition and microscopic morphology characteristics of grinded tuff(GT) and fly ash(FA) were compared and analyzed in the paper. The chemical bound water content and hydration heat were tested for investigating the hydration properties of grinded tuff-cement cementitious material system (GTCS) and fly ash-cement cementitious material system (FACS). The results shown that, the chemical composition of GT was similar with that of FA, however the loss on ignition of the GT was obviously higher than FA. The microstructure of the GT particles was polygonal and irregular, while the microstructure of FA particles were mostly smooth spheres. The hydrated heat evolution rules of GTCS and FACS were different, both GTCS and FACS had four hydration periods, but the second acceleration period of FACS was small and flat, without obviously peak, the second acceleration period of GTCS was similar to cement cementitious material system, with an obviously peak. The steady state period of FACS was significantly longer than that of the GTCS. Furthermore, the chemical bound water content of GTCS was higher before 7d and lower after 28d compared with FACS.
