Submitted:
25 September 2023
Posted:
26 September 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Nano aluminum oxide
2.1.2. Cement
2.1.3. Silica fume
2.1.4. Aggregates:
2.1.5. Superplasticizer:
2.1.6. Water
2.2. Experimental design
2.2.1. Mix design
2.2.2. Sample designation
2.2.3. Mixing procedure
2.3. Experimental tests
2.3.1. Setting time
2.3.2. Workability
2.3.3. Compressive strength
2.3.4. Residual compressive strength after thermal exposure
2.3.5. Characterization and morphology of the specimens
3. Discussion of results
3.1. Workability of nano-alumina/silica fume ternary blended mortar
3.2. Setting time of the SF blended and nano-alumina silica fume blended mortar.
3.4. Compressive strength of SF-nA ternary blended mortar
3.5. Morphology of SF blended binary and SF-nA ternary blended pastes
3.6. FTIR of SF binary and SF-nA ternary binder
3.7. Thermal performance of SF binary and SF-nA ternary blended mortar
4. Conclusions
- SF-nA ternary blended binder (C90-xS10Ax) had a better consistency than SF only binary blended paste. nA improved the interparticle lubrication and the workability of silica fume blended mortar significantly. The mortar developed with 3% nA and 10%SFv(C87S10A3) could attain equal consistency with ordinary Portland cement (OPC) binder (C100S0A0).
- SF delays the setting time of OPC due to dilution effect, however, the more the quantity of nA in C90-xS10Ax, the shorter the setting time. This implies that nA can be used to accelerate the delayed setting of SF blended binder (C90S10A0).
- Early compressive strength of SF blended mortar (C90S10A0) was lower than that of OPC (C100S0A0) but incorporation of nA significantly enhanced the 28-d compressive strength while CSH, CASH, tobermorite (CSH of lower Ca/Si ratio), calcite and mayenite dominated the phases present in the SF-nA ternary binder as noticed in the x-ray diffractograms (XRD).
- Introduction of nA in SF blended binder caused reduction in Ca/Al and Si/Al ratios compared to what is available in OPC binder.
- The calcite peak and CO vibration peaks in x-ray diffractogram and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy indicate that SF-nA ternary blended binder is more prone to carbonation compared to SF blended concrete.
- The optimum and maximum 28-day compressive strength of 43.2 MPa was achieved in the mixture with 10%SF and 2%nA (C88S10A2) whereas 36 and 30.5 MPa were recorded in OPC (C100S0A0) and 10%SF blended mortar (C90S10A0), respectively. The optimum mixture produced the densest microstructure.
- The SF-nA ternary blended binder (C88S10A2) had a better thermal resistance - with 3.7% loss in its 28-day strength - than SF binary blended binder (C90S10A0) and OPC binders (C100S0A0), that lost 8.85 and 33.3%, respectively.
References
- M. O. Yusuf, “Synergistic-effect of iron-filing and silica-fume on the absorption and shrinkage of cement paste,” Magazine of Civil Engineering, vol. 91, no. 7, 2019. [CrossRef]
- Memphis, “Fly ash, Slag, silica fume, and natural Pozzolans,” Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, no. 54048, pp. 57–72, 1996.
- P. C. A. K.H. Khayat, “Silica fume: a unique supplementary cementitious material, in: S.N. Ghosh (Ed.), Miner. Admixtures Cem. Concr.,” in ABI Books Private Limited, 1993, pp. 227–265.
- M. S. Fallah, Nematzadeh, “Mechanical properties and durability of high-strength concrete containing macro-polymeric and polypropylene fibers with nano-silica and silica fume.,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 132, 2017.
- C. Sadik, I. El Amrani, and A. Albizane, “Recent advances in silica-alumina refractory: A review,” Journal of Asian Ceramic Societies , vol. 2, pp. 83–96, 2014. [CrossRef]
- http://climateandweather.com/, “Weather in the Middle East,” http://climateandweather.com/weather-in-middle-east accessed Sept 11, 2023, Sep. 2023.
- Moruf O. Yusuf, “Performance of Aluminium Shaving Waste and Silica fume Blended Mortar,” Magazine of Civil Engineering, vol. 06, no. 22, 2023.
- C. A. ; D. S. K. ; J. I. S. Ungureanu, “Life-cycle cost analysis: aluminum versus steel in passenger cars.,” In aluminum alloys for transportation, packaging, aerospace, and other applications, 1st ed.; Das, K.S., Yin, W., Eds.; TMS: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, pp. 11–24, 2007.
- S. Capuzzi and G. Timelli, “Preparation and melting of scrap in aluminum recycling: A review,” Metals, vol. 8, no. 4. MDPI AG, Apr. 01, 2018. [CrossRef]
- J. , Yu et al., “Influence of the degree of crystallinity of added nano-alumina on strength and reaction products of the CaO-activated GGBFS system.,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. ,296, no. 123647, 2021.
- J. , Yu et al., “Examination of sulfate resistance of nano-alumina added ordinary Portland cement paste, focusing on the two different crystallinity of nano-aluminas,” Int J Concr Struct Mater, vol. 17, no. 1, Dec. 2023. [CrossRef]
- T. Dyer, Concrete durability. . Boca Raton: Crc Press., 2014.
- P. K. Mehta and A. Klein, “Formation of ettringite in pastes containing calcium aluminoferrites and gypsum,” National Science Foundation Committee on basic research partaining to Portland cement and concrete, vol. Grant No 6, pp. 36–45, 1965.
- Q. , Shao, K. , Zheng, X. , Zhou, J. , Zhou, and X. Zeng, “Enhancement of nano-alumina on long-term strength of portland cement and the relation to its influences on compositional and microstructural aspects. ,” Cem Concr Compos, vol. 98, pp. 39–48, 2019.
- B. J. , Zhan, D. X. , Xuan, and C. S. Poon, “The effect of nanoalumina on early hydration and mechanical properties of cement pastes. ,” Construction and Building Materials,202, 169–176., vol. 202, pp. 169–176, 2019.
- R. Shabbar, P. Nedwell, and Z. Wu, “Mechanical properties of lightweight aerated concrete with different aluminium powder content,” 2017. [CrossRef]
- R. Shabbar, P. Nedwell, and Z. Wu, “Mechanical properties of lightweight aerated concrete with different aluminium powder content,” in MATEC Web of Conferences, 2017. [CrossRef]
- R. Shabbar, P. Nedwell, M. Al-Taee, and Z. Wu, “Effect of Different Aluminium Powder Content on the Behaviour of Aerated Concrete: Experimental and Finite Element Validation,” International Journal of Materials, Mechanics and Manufacturing, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 155–158, 2018. [CrossRef]
- Wikipedia, “Aluminium oxide nano particle,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxide_nanoparticle, Sep. 16, 2023.
- ASTM C157, “Standard Test Method for Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic-Cement Mortar and Concrete,” 2008.
- ASTM, “ASTM C191-21 Standard Test Methods for Time of Setting of Hydraulic Cement by Vicat Needle,” America Standard Method of Testing, Nov. 2021.
- ASTM C1437-20, “Standard Test Method for Flow of Hydraulic Cement Mortar.” ASTM International, 2020.
- ASTM C109/C109M-20, “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or [50-mm] Cube Specimens).” ASTM International, 2020.
- M. O. Yusuf, “Bond Characterization in Cementitious Material Binders Using Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy,” Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 3353, Mar. 2023. [CrossRef]
- R. Zahedi and S. J. Mirmohammadi, “Sulfate removal from chemical industries’ wastewater using ettringite precipitation process with recovery of Al(OH)3,” Appl Water Sci, vol. 12, no. 9, Sep. 2022. [CrossRef]










| Oxide composition | OPC | SF | Alumina |
|---|---|---|---|
| SiO2 | 19.01 | 95.85 | 0.00 |
| Al2O3 | 4.68 | 0.26 | 99.87 |
| Fe2O3 | 3.20 | 0.05 | 0.03 |
| CaO | 66.89 | 0.21 | 0.07 |
| MgO | 0.81 | 0.45 | 0.03 |
| Na2O | 0.09 | 0.4 | - |
| TiO2 | 0.22 | - | - |
| K2O | 1.17 | 1.22 | - |
| P2O5 | 0.08 | - | - |
| SO3 | 3.66 | 1.00 | - |
| MnO | 0.19 | 0.00 | - |
| SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3 | 26.89 | 96.16 | 99.90 |
| SG | 3.14 | 2.25 | 3.38 |
| LOI (%) | 2.80 | 2.48 | 1.05 |
| Surface area (m2/g) | 0.33 | 22.8 | 440 |
| Samples | Cement (Kg/m3) | Silica fume (Kg/m3) | Alumina (Kg/m3) | Sand (Kg/m3) | Water (Kg/m3) | SP (Kg/m3) | Wet density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C100S0A0 | 350.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1809.84 | 157.50 | 3.50 | 2320.84 |
| C90S10A0 | 315.00 | 35.00 | 0.00 | 1798.64 | 157.50 | 3.50 | 2309.64 |
| C89S10A1 | 311.50 | 35.00 | 3.50 | 1798.84 | 157.50 | 3.50 | 2309.84 |
| C88S10A2 | 308.00 | 35.00 | 7.00 | 1799.04 | 157.50 | 3.50 | 2310.04 |
| C87S10A3 | 304.50 | 35.00 | 10.50 | 1799.24 | 157.50 | 3.50 | 2310.24 |
| Element | OPC | SF+OPC | SF+OPC+nA | OPC+nA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | 8.8 | 15.1 | 11.1 | 15.5 |
| O | 49.9 | 44.6 | 44.2 | 44.6 |
| Al | 1.04 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.7 |
| Si | 6.4 | 10.8 | 8.2 | 9.7 |
| K | 1.6 | 0 | 1.6 | 0 |
| Ca | 30.8 | 26.5 | 32.2 | 27.1 |
| Fe | 1.1 | 1.7 | 2.1 | 1.5 |
| Ca/Si | 4.8 | 2.5 | 3.9 | 2.8 |
| Ca/Al | 29.6 | 18.9 | 20.1 | 15.9 |
| Si/Al | 6.2 | 7.7 | 5.1 | 5.7 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).