Datei im Netzwerk der BAM verfügbar ("Closed Access")
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (1)
- Beitrag zu einem Tagungsband (1)
- Vortrag (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (3)
Schlagworte
- AAM (1)
- Alkali-activated materials (1)
- Building Material (1)
- Carbonation (1)
- Environmental assessment (1)
- GGBFS (1)
- Heavy metals (1)
- Leaching (1)
- Mix design (1)
- Pore solution composition (1)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (1)
Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag (GGBFS), a by-product of the iron-making process, has gained significant attention as a supplementary cementitious material and has become increasingly popular in recent years due to its remarkable properties. GGBFS can significantly reduce the environmental impact of cement production when it comes to building concrete structures. GGBFS can either be blended with ordinary Portland cement (OPC) (up to a 90% replacement), or it can be used in the production of alkali-activated materials (AAMs). However, a comprehensive understanding of the pore solution composition is necessary for understanding various aspects of cementitious materials and their durability, including corrosion behavior, passivation of steel, and resistance to deteriorative processes. In the present work, the pore solutions of seven different GGBFS-containing cements (alkali-activated slag, alkali-activated slag/fly ash blends, a hybrid alkaline cement, CEM III/C, and CEM III/B) were extracted and analysed by inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy, ion chromatography, pH, redox potential, and conductivity measurements. For comparison, a Portland cement pore solution was analysed similarly. The Concentrations of reduced sulfur were noteworthy in all GGBFS-containing cements, particularly in alkali-activated cements, where concentrations were notably higher compared to standard cements. The redox potentials of the pore solutions were primarily dictated by the concentrations of reduced sulfur, although other factors may contribute. Additionally, sulfur species in the pore solutions had an impact on pH, electrical conductivity, and other properties pertinent to the corrosion of reinforcements.
The current ability to predict the carbonation resistance of alkali-activated materials (AAMs) is incomplete, partly because of widely varying AAM chemistries and variable testing conditions. To identify general correlations between mix design parameters and the carbonation rate of AAMs, RILEM TC 281-CCC Working Group 6 compiled and analysed carbonation data for alkali-activated concretes and mortars from the literature. For comparison purposes, data for blended Portland cement-based concretes with a high percentage of SCMs (≥66% of the binder) were also included in the database. The results show that the water/CaO ratio is not a reliable indicator of the carbonation rate of AAMs. A better indicator of the carbonation rate of AAMs under conditions approximating natural carbonation is their water/(CaO + MgOeq + Na2Oeq + K2Oeq) ratio, where the index ‘eq’ indicates an equivalent amount based on molar masses. This finding can be explained by the CO2 binding capacity of alkaline-earth and alkali metal ions; the obtained correlation also indicates an influence of the space-filling capability of the binding phases of AAMs, as for conventional cements. However, this ratio can serve only as an approximate indicator of carbonation resistance, as other parameters also affect the carbonation resistance of alkali-activated concretes. In addition, the analysis of the dataset revealed peculiarities of accelerated tests using elevated CO2 concentrations for low-Ca AAMs, indicating that even at the relatively modest concentration of 1% CO2, accelerated testing may lead to inaccurate predictions of their carbonation resistance under natural exposure conditions.
The environmental impact assessment of materials is usually based on laboratory tests, mostly in combination with models describing the longterm fate of the substances of interest in the targeted environmental compartment. Thus, laboratory tests are the fundamental link to achieve appropriate assessment conclusions which makes it essential to generate consistent results. This just as applies to the leaching of cementitious materials. In Europe, the leaching behavior of monolithic building materials is tested in the Dynamic Surface Leaching Test following the specification CEN/TS 16637–2. An interlaboratory comparison on European level regarding this technical specification showed relatively high intra- and interlaboratory variations for the tested materials (monolithic copper slag and cement stabilized coal fly ash). Therefore the German Committee for Structural Concrete (DAfStb) framed a guideline to specify additional testing conditions for cementitious materials. To assess the possible improvement by this guidelines measures, a round robin test with 11 participants from Germany and the Netherlands was conducted. This work aims to provide insight into the factors to be considered in the testing of alkaline materials, including sample preparation, and highlights crucial procedures and their manifestation in the results. All evaluated parameters showed improved results compared to the earlier round robin test. The relative standard deviations for repeatability (RSDr) and reproducibility (RSDR) of the elements calcium, barium, antimony, chromium, molybdenum and vanadium, which are the parameters evaluated in both round robin tests, were RSDr = 4%, 4%, 2%, 5%, 5%, and 5% respectively (4% in average) for this work, in comparison to the European round robin test with an average RSDr of 29% (17%, 17%, 20%, 40%, 36%, and 42%). The RSDR improved from 41% (30%, 36%, 29%, 57%, 40%, and 56%) to 14% (12%, 8%, 6%, 28%, 15%, and 12%). CO2 ingress during testing and the inaccuracy of eluate analytics for concentrations close to the determination limits were identified as the main sources of error.