Title:
Performance of Alternative Binders in Sulfate Environments
Author(s):
L.E. Burris and K.E. Kurtis
Publication:
Symposium Paper
Volume:
317
Issue:
Appears on pages(s):
1-18
Keywords:
Alternative cementitious materials; calcium sulfoaluminate cement; calcium aluminate cement; magnesium phosphate cement; alkali activated binders; sustainability; durability
DOI:
10.14359/51700843
Date:
6/1/2017
Abstract:
Cement production accounts for 5-7% of annual anthropogenic CO2, making it one of the largest contributors to CO2 emissions. The use of alternative cementitious materials and binders (ACMs) such as calcium sulfoaluminate cement (CSA), calcium aluminate cement (CAC), magnesium phosphate cement (MPC) and alkali-activated binders (AA) are one method of reducing the greenhouse gases associated with the production of concrete. These materials often can be produced at lower temperatures than ordinary portland cements (OPC) and have lower calcium contents, reducing the emissions associated with CO2 released from calcium carbonate during calcination. However, before alternative cements can become viable greener alternatives to ordinary portland cements their chemistry, microstructure, and resulting properties, with respect to durability must first be understood. Using standard mortar bar sulfate testing showed that CSA, AA, and blended CAC systems may be appropriate for use in high sulfate environments, while pure CAC and MPC systems should be avoided. However, additional characterization of the sulfate exposed samples, showing layers of altered microstructures in most samples, suggests that the mechanisms of expansion and degradation due to sulfate ingress, as they are understood
for portland cement systems, may not be adequate for determining resistance to sulfate degradation for alternative binder systems. Therefore, additional study is warranted before recommendations on use of ACMs in sulfate-laden environments can be made.
Related References:
1. Mehta, P. K.; Monteiro, P. J. M. Concrete: Structure, Properties and Materials; PrenticeHall, New Jersey, 1993.
2. De Weerdt, K.; Haha, M. Ben; Le Saout, G.; Kjellsen, K. O.; Justnes, H.; Lothenbach, B.Hydration Mechanisms of Ternary Portland Cements Containing Limestone Powder andFly Ash. Cem. Concr. Res. 2011, 41 (3), 279–291.
3. Bhatty, J.; Taylor, P. Sulfate Resistance of Concrete Using Blended Cements orSupplementary Cementitious Materials. PCA R&D Ser. No. 2916a 2006, 21.
4. Juenger, M. C. G.; Winnefeld, F.; Provis, J. L.; Ideker, J. H. Advances in AlternativeCementitious Binders. Cem. Concr. Res. 2011, 41 (12), 1232–1243.
5. Scrivener, K. L.; Cabiron, J.-L.; Letourneux, R. High-Performance Concretes fromCalcium Aluminate Cements. Cem. Concr. Res. 1999, 29 (8), 1215–1223.
6. Torrens-Martin, D.; Fernandez-Carrasco, L. Long-Term Hydration and MechanicalBehaviour of Portland Cement, Calcium Aluminate Cement and Calcium Sulfate Blends.In Proceedings of the International Conference on Calcium Aluminates; Avignon, France,2014; pp 242–249.
7. Torréns-Martín, D.; Fernández-Carrasco, L.; Blanco-Varela, M. T. ConductionCalorimetric Studies of Ternary Binders Based on Portland Cement, Calcium AluminateCement and Calcium Sulphate. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2013, 114 (2), 799–807.
8. Yue, L.; Bing, C. Factors That Affect the Properties of Magnesium Phosphate Cement.Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 47, 977–983.
9. Yang, Q.; Wu, X. Factors Influencing Properties of Phosphate Cement-Based Binder forRapid Repair of Concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 1999, 29 (3), 389–396.
10. Ding, Z.; Li, Z. Effect of Aggregates and Water Contents on the Properties of MagnesiumPhospho-Silicate Cement. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2005, 27 (1), 11–18.
11. Seehra, S. S.; Gupta, S.; Kumar, S. Rapid Setting Magnesium Phosphate Cement forQuick Repair of Concrete Pavements — Characterisation and Durability Aspects. Cem.Concr. Res. 1993, 23 (2), 254–266.
12. Soudée, E.; Péra, J. Mechanism of Setting Reaction in Magnesia-Phosphate Cements.Cem. Concr. Res. 2000, 30 (2), 315–321.
13. Yang, Q.; Zhu, B.; Wu, X. Characteristics and Durability Test of Magnesium PhosphateCement-Based Material for Rapid Repair of Concrete. Mater. Struct. 2000, 33 (4), 229–234.
14. Pacheco-Torgal, F.; Castro-Gomes, J.; Jalali, S. Alkali-Activated Binders: A Review.Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22 (7), 1305–1314.
15. Van Deventer, J. S. J.; Provis, J. L.; Duxson, P. Technical and Commercial Progress in theAdoption of Geopolymer Cement. Miner. Eng. 2012, 29, 89–104.
16. Duxson, P.; Fernández-Jiménez, A.; Provis, J. L.; Lukey, G. C.; Palomo, A.; Deventer, J.S. J. Geopolymer Technology: The Current State of the Art. J. Mater. Sci. 2007, 42 (9),2917–2933.
17. Bernal, S. a.; Provis, J. L. Durability of Alkali-Activated Materials: Progress andPerspectives. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 2014, 97 (4), 997–1008.
18. Bakharev, T.; Sanjayan, J. G.; Cheng, Y.-B. Sulfate Attack on Alkali-Activated SlagConcrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2002, 32 (2), 211–216.
19. Odler, I. Letter to the Editor: Ettingite Nomenclature. Cem. Concr. Res. 1997, 27 (3), 473–474.
20. Odler, I.; Colán-Subauste, J. Investigations on Cement Expansion Associated withEttringite Formation. Cem. Concr. Res. 1999, 29 (5), 731–735.
21. Mehta, P. K. Mechanism of Expansion Associated with Ettringite Formation. Cem. Concr.Res. 1973, 3, 1–6.
22. Flatt, R. J.; Scherer, G. W. Thermodynamics of Crystallization Stresses in DEF. Cem.Concr. Res. 2008, 38 (3), 325–336.
23. Scherer, G. W. Crystallization in Pores. Cem. Concr. Res. 1999, 29 (8), 1347–1358.
24. ASTM Standard C33: Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates. ASTM Int. 2011,11.
25. ASTM Standard C1012 – Standard Test Method for Length Change of Hydraulic-CementMortars Exposed to a Sulfate Solution. ASTM Int. 2013, 1–6.
26. ASTM Standard C109: Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of HydraulicCement Mortars (Using 2-In. or
50-Mm. Cube Specimens). ASTM Int. 2011, 1–9.
27. Kurtis, K. E.; Burris, L.; Alapati, P. Consider Functional Equivalence : A (Faster) Path toUpscaling Sustainable Infrastructure Materials Compositions. In 1st InternationalConference on Grand Challenges in Construction Materials; Los Angeles, CA; p 8.
28. Ikumi, T.; Cavalaro, S. H. P.; Segura, I.; de la Fuente, A.; Aguado, A. SimplifiedMethodology to Evaluate the External Sulfate Attack in Concrete Structures. Mater. Des.2016, 89, 1147–1160.
29. Müllauer, W.; Beddoe, R. E.; Heinz, D. Sulfate Attack Expansion Mechanisms. Cem.Concr. Res. 2013, 52, 208–215.
30. ASTM Standard C490 - Standard Practice for Use of Apparatus for the Determination ofLength Change of Hardened Cement Paste , Mortar , and Concrete. ASTM Int. 2011, 15.
31. Sideris, K. K.; Savva, A. E.; Papayianni, J. Sulfate Resistance and Carbonation of Plainand Blended Cements. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2006, 28 (1), 47–56.
32. Al-Akhras, N. M. Durability of Metakaolin Concrete to Sulfate Attack. Cem. Concr. Res.2006, 36 (9), 1727–1734.
33. Shanahan, N.; Zayed, A. Cement Composition and Sulfate Attack: Part I. Cem. Concr.Res. 2007, 37 (4), 618–623.