A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Rapid Assessment of Sulfate Resistance in Mortar and Concrete. | LitMetric

Rapid Assessment of Sulfate Resistance in Mortar and Concrete.

Materials (Basel)

Department of Construction Management, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.

Published: September 2024

Extensive research has been conducted on the sulfate attack of concrete structures; however, the need to adopt the use of more sustainable materials is driving a need for a quicker test method to assess sulfate resistance. This work presents accelerated methods that can reduce the time required for assessing the sulfate resistance of mixtures by 70%. Class F fly ash has historically been used in concrete mixtures to improve sulfate resistance. However, environmental considerations and the evolving energy industry have decreased its availability, requiring the identification of economically viable and environmentally friendly alternatives to fly ash. Another challenge in addressing sulfate attack durability issues in concrete is that the standard sulfate attack test (ASTM C1012) is time-consuming and designed for only standard mortars (not concrete mixtures). To expedite the testing process, accelerated testing methods for both mortar and concrete mixtures were adopted from previous work to further the development of the accelerated tests and to assess the feasibility of testing the sulfate resistance of mortar and concrete mixtures rapidly. This study also established criteria for interpreting sulfate resistance for each of the test methods used in this work. A total of 14 mortar mixtures and four concrete mixtures using two types of Portland cement (Type I and Type I/II) and various supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) were evaluated in this study. The accelerated testing methods significantly reduced the evaluation time from 12 months to 21 days for mortar mixtures and from 6 months to 56 days for concrete mixtures. The proposed interpretation method for mortar accelerated test results showed acceptable consistency with the ACI 318-19 interpretations for ASTM C1012 results. The interpretation methods proposed for the two concrete sulfate attack tests demonstrated excellent consistency with the ASTM C1012 results from mortar mixtures with the same cementitious materials combinations. Metakaolin was shown to improve sulfate resistance for both mortar and concrete mixtures, while silica fume and natural pozzolan had a limited impact. Using 15% metakaolin in mortar or concrete mixtures with Type I/II cement provided the best sulfate resistance.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11478107PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma17194678DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

sulfate resistance
32
concrete mixtures
32
mortar concrete
20
sulfate attack
16
sulfate
12
resistance mortar
12
concrete
12
mixtures
12
astm c1012
12
mortar mixtures
12

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!