Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Next Article in Journal
Influence of Connector Design on Displacement and Micromotion in Tooth-Implant Fixed Partial Dentures Using Different Lengths and Diameters: A Three-Dimensional Finite Element Study
Previous Article in Journal
Numerical Simulation and Microstructure Analysis of 30CrMnMoRe High-Strength Steel Welding
Previous Article in Special Issue
Simultaneous Immobilization of Heavy Metals in MKPC-Based Mortar—Experimental Assessment
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 17
Issue 17
10.3390/ma17174417
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Shrinkage and Creep Properties of Low-Carbon Hybrid Cement

by
Vít Šmilauer
1,*,
Lenka Dohnalová
1 and
Pavel Martauz
2
1
Department of Mechanics, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Thákurova 7, 166 29 Prague, Czech Republic
2
Považská Cementáreň Cement Plant (PCLA), 01863 Ladce, Slovakia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2024, 17(17), 4417; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17174417
Submission received: 24 July 2024 / Revised: 30 August 2024 / Accepted: 5 September 2024 / Published: 7 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced and Sustainable Low-Carbon Cement and Concrete Materials (Second Edition))
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Hybrid cements combine clinker with large amount of supplementary cementitious materials while utilizing hydration and alkali activation processes. This paper summarizes shrinkage and creep properties of industrially produced H-cement, containing only 20% of Portland clinker. In comparison with a reference cement CEM II/B-S 32.5 R, autogenous shrinkage is smaller after 7 days, and drying shrinkage is similar at similar times. A different capillary system of H-cement leads to faster water mass loss during drying. Basic and total creep of concrete remains in the standard deviation of B4 and EC2 creep models. The results demonstrate that shrinkage and creep properties of concrete made from H-cement have similar behavior as conventional structural concrete or high-volume fly ash concrete.

1. Introduction

Since the patent of Portland cement in 1824, the cement industry has developed Portland clinker to become the main ingredient of currently used blended cements. Global cement production was estimated at 4.1 Gt in 2019, emitting 0.65–0.92 tons of CO2/ton depending on cement plant technology and the amount of clinker in cement [1]. This corresponds to about 8% of the global CO2 emissions. The construction industry is determined to increase the sustainability by incorporating new materials and technologies [2]. Current concretes provide feasible solutions to several engineering projects, where improvements are sought, especially in areas of carbonation, chemical resistance, durability, deterioration and volume changes [3].
Adding KOH to ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS) was systematically studied by H. Kühl in 1930, formulating the principles of alkali activation. In 1957, V. Glukhovsky found the possibility to produce an alkali-activated binder even with calcium-free aluminosilicates (clays)—see the historical development in [4,5]. It became clear that C-S-H gel, as the main hydration product of Portland clinker, or C-A-S-H gel, which are found more in blended cements, can be substituted with N-A-S-H or N-(C)-A-S-H gels by incorporating alkalies to the system [6]. Blending Portland and alkali-activated systems leads to so-called hybrid cements, yielding a wide range of hydration products and properties inherited from both systems [6].
Coal fly ash, GGBFS, calcined mineral clays, including metakaolin, or alkali-rich solid wastes constitute common aluminosilicate precursors [7]. Alkali-activated cements are used in a niche market by dozens of companies, spanning from acid and fire protection to the construction of buildings [7]. Common activators, sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate, are the most expensive parts, increasing the concrete unit price by 2–3× when compared to its Portland counterpart [7]. Hybrid systems are price-competitive due to the fact that activators may be present in smaller amounts and in a solid form, combining both hydration and alkali activation processes.
In 2016, a hybrid cement “H-cement” was patented by Považská cementáreň, a.s., Ladce, the Slovak Republic. Its characteristic composition uses only 20% of Portland clinker, which is supplemented with fly ash, slag and a small amount of a Na2SO4 activator from alkali waters of bauxite residues. Basic properties have been summarized in other papers [8,9].
Early results have successfully demonstrated concrete production up to C30/37 strength class and with lower drying shrinkage than Portland cement concrete [8,9]. Further research proved excellent high ASR resistance [8], high resistance to sulphates, high resistance to fire, compatibility with recycled aggregates, higher adhesion [10] and approximately 40% CO2 emissions compared to CEM II/B-S 32.5 R due to 20% content of Portland clinker. Promising applications for thermal energy storage have been also documented, demonstrating higher thermal capacity and thermal diffusivity [11].
The main objectives of this paper are to investigate the shrinkage and creep properties of concrete made from H-cement, which contains significantly less alkalies than classical alkali-activated systems. Generally, alkali-activated slags have showed higher autogenous shrinkage [12] and higher drying shrinkage [13] than their Portland cement counterparts. On the other hand, high-volume fly ash concrete (HVFAC), replacing at least 50% of cement, was found to reduce both autogenous and drying shrinkage [14,15]. This paper provides experimental data for autogenous shrinkage, drying shrinkage accompanied with mass loss, and basic and total creep. The results demonstrate that concrete made from H-cement behaves similarly as conventional structural concrete or HVFAC.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. H-Cement and CEM II/B-S

Table 1 shows the oxide composition of four components of H-cement, i.e., clinker, fly ash, slag and an alkali activator, as obtained from separated XRF analyses using SPECTRO X-LAB 2000, SPECTRO Analytical Instruments Inc., Kleve, Germany. Granulated blast furnace slag comes from the steel company Třinecké železárny, Třinec, the Czech Republic. However, especially in the case of slag and fly ash, their chemical composition varies over time. The characteristic composition of H-cement uses 20% clinker, 65% fly ash, 10% slag and 5% of an alkali activator, mostly Na2SO4—see Table 1. High Blaine fineness of H-cement 610 m2/kg promotes early-age reactivity. In addition, a reference cement CEM II/B-S 32.5 R, Mokrá, the Czech Republic, is used for comparison, having a Blaine fineness of 331 m2/kg. The reference cement was chosen due to slow hydration kinetics similar to H-cement, its wide availability, a lower carbon footprint with 29% clinker substitution level and available experimental data.
Strength evolution is summarized in Table 2 according to EN 196-1 [16]. In the test, H-cement used decreased w/c = 0.40.

2.2. Mix Design

Table 3 summarizes mix designs for mortar and concrete with the same w/c = 0.45. Mortar and concrete contains 58% and 69.1% of aggregates by volume, respectively. A reference mortar made from CEM II/B-S 32.5 R was used for the comparison.

2.3. Isothermal Calorimetry

Isothermal calorimetry was performed at 20 °C with the TamAIR calorimeter (Thermometric AB, Stochholm, Sweden). The pastes were mixed externally by hand for approximately 30 s and vibrated in the IKA Vortex I orbital shaker for 20 s. The procedure followed the prEN 196-11 Method “A” for external mixing with one modification; the heat released before 45 min was calculated from the known initial temperature, the estimated heat capacity and integrated heat flow up to 45 min. Calorimetry always used two samples with approximately 18 g of cement in each ampule with negligible differences.

2.4. Autogenous and Drying Shrinkage

Autogenous shrinkage of the cement paste followed ASTM C1698-19 [17] and took place on the horizontal corrugated tubes with an inner minimum diameter of 23.0 mm and the effective length of 400 mm. A pair of linear displacement sensors located at both ends of the sample measured the changes in length, and the values were automatically recorded at a maximum interval of 30 min—see Figure 1. The strain was zeroed at the final set, according to ASTM C1698-19, and the measurement was run for 34 days.
Drying shrinkage of mortars or concrete used 500 mm long prisms—see Figure 2. Mortar prisms had cross-sections of 25 × 25 , 30 × 30 , 40 × 40 , and 60 × 60 mm, and concrete prisms used cross-sections of 40 × 40 and 60 × 60 mm. The aim was to achieve final shrinkage values on smaller specimens with regard to the maximum size of the aggregate and workability. The samples were sealed for 14 days and then exposed to drying in an environment of 21 ± 2 °C and relative humidity of 51 ± 3% for 350 days—see Figure 3.

2.5. Creep

Basic and total creep measurement took place in creep rigs—see Figure 4. A hydraulic press compressed the spring with a centric force of 100 kN, and two specimens were kept under the load for 350 days without any load compensation. A force loss of less than 2% was recorded when unloading. The samples were cylinders with a diameter of 150 mm and a height of 300 mm, and a vibrating wire strain gauge was placed inside the cylinder. The samples were loaded at 14 days of age with a stress value of −5.659 MPa, at 19% of compressive strength to recover linear creep.
Creep compliance functions in EC2 [18] and B4 [19] models describe deformations in the general form as
J ( t , t ′ ) = J b c ( t , t ′ ) + J d c ( t , t ′ , t 0 ) ,
where J b c ( t , t ′ ) stands for the basic creep compliance and J d c ( t , t ′ , t 0 ) for the drying creep compliance. If a unit stress is applied at loading age t ′ , the compliance function in Equation (1) describes the evolution of stress-related strain, including the initial elastic strain. The EC2 model expresses the compliance function using a creep coefficient as
J ( t , t ′ ) = 1 E ( t ′ ) + φ 28 E ( 28 ) .

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Isothermal Calorimetry

The results from isothermal calorimetry are summarized in Figure 5. Released heat at 1 h, corresponding to the end of initial period, shows similar values for both cements, reflecting mostly the dissolution of clinker surface particles and/or the dissolution of Na2SO4 in the activator. Induction and accelerating periods up to 10 h demonstrate a higher surface area of H-cement, in the ratio of 610/331 = 1.84, which approximately corresponds to the ratio of heat flows. In addition, silicate and aluminate monomers are formed from fly ash/slag contained in H-cement. The decelerating period of H-cement encompasses the ongoing hydration of clinker, pozzolanic and latent hydraulic reactions, as well as the nucleation, growth, polymerization and polycondensation of alumosilicate monomers. Reaction products generally span across a wide range from C-S-H and C-A-S-H to N-A-S-H gels [20] and strongly depend on the pH level [4]; however, a detailed analysis of a H-cement reaction has not been performed yet. Seven-day released heat corresponds to 211 and 254 J/g for H-cement and CEM II/B-S 32.5 R, respectively.

3.2. Autogenous Shrinkage

Autogenous shrinkage was zeroed at the final set, according to ASTM C1698-19 [17]. Figure 6 shows strain evolution for cement pastes made from H-cement and CEM II/B-S 32.5 R, both at w/c = 0.40. H-cement generally exhibits similar shrinkage up to 7 days and smaller shrinkage afterwards. Such a result seems contradictory to Li et al. [21], reporting that the alkali activation of fly ash or slag induces autogenous shrinkage that is several times higher against OPC pastes. However, such a conclusion was confirmed for only 25–50% clinker substitution levels, while a substitution above 50% led to a decrease due to highly diluted system with slowly reacting fly ash [22]. Poromechanics offers another explanation where the creation of capillary menisci due to self-desiccation exerts compressive stress on stiff microstructures in partially saturated porous media [23]. According to the model, higher stiffness in early age, larger curvature of menisci and lower volume shrinkage mitigate macroscopic autogenous shrinkage. Scaling the autogenous shrinkage from paste to concrete in Table 3 is possible with a factor of approximately 0.15, according to [24]. Ultimate autogenous shrinkage strain for H-cement-based concrete would attain approximately −100 · 10−6. Ultimate autogenous shrinkage is much closer to high-volume fly ash concrete (HVFAC) [25] than alkali-activated slag or slag/fly ash pastes [21]. In this regard, H-cement resembles a more dilute and highly blended system, which is accelerated by low alkali content.

3.3. Drying Shrinkage

The mortar of H-cement was subjected to drying after 14 days of sealed curing. After almost a year of drying, the ultimate value of shrinkage strain, −740 · 10−6, was reached on the smallest samples of 25 × 25 mm—see Figure 7. Drying follows the correct trend where the same deformation is achieved in the square ratio of edge size, i.e., 50 × 50 and 25 × 25 mm samples will have a fourfold difference in time for the same shrinkage values. The reproducibility is excellent, and the lines show an average from two or three prisms. Comparative values with CEM II/B-S 32.5 R cement are plotted with points, showing similar kinetics and ultimate values of mortars. Smaller samples exhibit faster drying shrinkage and slightly higher ultimate values [26]. Such a phenomenon is generally related to non-uniform moisture transport, internal stress relaxation and surface microcracking.
H-cement shows mass loss that is approximately two times higher at the same drying time—see Figure 8. A differential equation governing water mass balance of a single-fluid medium can be used to explain this, as follows:
∂ w ∂ h ∂ h ∂ t = − ∇ · J w + w n d α d t ,
where h is relative humidity (-), ∂ w ∂ h is humidity-dependent moisture capacity (kgm−3), J w (kgm−2s−1) represents the moisture flux, the sink term w n corresponds to non-evaporable water content for complete hydration (kgm−3) and α is the degree of reaction (-). The moisture flux is defined further by the constitutive law [27]:
J w = − c ( h ) ∇ h ,
where c ( h ) (kgm−1s−1) is the moisture permeability that is dependent on relative humidity. The higher moisture loss ∂ w ∂ t is therefore controlled by higher moisture permeability and a lower rate of evaporable water binding w n d α d t . Indeed, total porosity (encompassing pore diameters 0.534 nm–1.82 μm from MIP at 5 year age) yields 19.67% for H-cement-based mortar and 11.95% for OPC mortar with low C3A content [9].
The relationship between weight loss and drying shrinkage is depicted in Figure 9, merging data from the cross-sections of 30 × 30 , 40 × 40 , 50 × 50 , and 60 × 60 mm. The data are interpolated with a power function, showing that for the same drying shrinkage, strain H-cement loses approximately twice as much water as CEM II/B-S 32.5 R. Such a behavior can be explained with the larger emptied capillary pores of H-cement, exerting less pressure on the solid skeleton due to the lower curvature of menisci. Larger porosity with an abundance of evaporable water promotes internal curing, which can become the primary cause of drying out environments with vapor barriers, such as floors or slabs.
Drying shrinkage of concrete specimens is summarized in Figure 10. Ultimate shrinkage strain can be calculated from the ratio of concrete/mortar shrinkage at 350 days of 60 × 60 mm specimens, which yields −332/−452 · (−723) = −531. The approximation of concrete drying shrinkage strain reads
ε s h ( t ) = − 531 · 10 − 6 tanh t − t 0 600 0.6 ,
where drying would end in approximately 4 years.

3.3.1. Basic Creep

Sealed concrete cylinders made of H-cement were placed in a rig and loaded at 14 days—see Figure 4 and Figure 11. The elastic strain immediately after loading was 36 · 10−6/MPa, corresponding to a static modulus of elasticity of 27.8 GPa. Creep measurements were not performed on the reference cement CEM II/B-S 32.5 R. Two models for creep, namely EC2 and B4, showed similar predictions as the experimental data. While the EC2 model corresponds better to early-age creep, the B4 model follows long-term creep closely. Previously, error coefficients of variation were determined from hundreds of experimental points, and the experimental data for H-cement-based concrete fall within the range of standard deviations [28].

3.3.2. Total Creep

Total creep can be obtained from total deformation by subtracting drying shrinkage and autogenous shrinkage, with the latter being negligible. Drying shrinkage strain from a concrete prism of size 60 × 60 mm was used for estimating the behavior of the cylinder with a diameter of 150 mm. According to the B4 model, characteristic time is proportional to ( k s · 2 · V / S ) 2 , where k s stands for the shape’s parameter, V represents the specimen’s volume and S its drying surface [19]. The prism 60 × 60 mm yields ( 1.25 · 2 · 15 ) 2 = 1406 mm2, while the cylinder yields ( 1.15 · 2 · 37.5 ) 2 = 7439 mm2. Thus, the ratio of drying kinetics is 1406/7439 = 0.189. The drying shrinkage strain of the cylinder corresponds to
ε s h ( t ) = − 531 · 10 − 6 tanh 0.189 ( t − t 0 ) 600 0.6 .
The compliance function in Figure 12 follows the mean values from the EC2 and B4 models. In all cases, the compliance falls within standard deviation bounds. The results are comparable with HVFAC behavior [29], which resembles 65% of the content of fly ash in H-cement.

4. Conclusions

This paper summarizes creep and shrinkage data of hybrid cement (called H-cement), mostly measured over a period of 350 days. The following conclusions were found:
  • Autogenous shrinkage shows similar values up to 7 days between H-cement and CEM II/B-S 32.5 R pastes. After 7 days, H-cement shows smaller autogenous shrinkage.
  • Drying shrinkage evolves similarly for mortars made from H-cement and CEM II/B-S 32.5 R cement. For the same shrinkage, H-cement loses approximately twice as much water. The reason for this likely stems from the coarser capillary pores and lower capillary pressure.
  • The ultimate value of H-cement’s total shrinkage reached − 723 · 10 − 6 on mortar samples of size 25 × 25 mm. Similar values were achieved by a comparable mortar made from CEM II/B-S 32.5 R.
  • Basic and total creep of H-cement concrete falls within the standard deviation margins of B4 and EC2 models for structural concrete. H-cement concrete exhibits similar total creep as high-volume fly ash concrete.
  • Overall, the shrinkage and creep properties of H-cement showed similar values to comparable structural concretes, displaying potential for having low-carbon applications in the construction industry.

Author Contributions

V.Š.: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, data curation, writing—original draft and revision, and supervision; L.D.: investigation and writing—review and editing; P.M.: conceptualization, data curation, writing—review and editing, and supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (GA ČR), grant number 22-35755K.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Only the data published in this paper are available.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (GA ČR), project number 22-35755K (SUMO: Sustainable design empowered by material modeling, semantic interoperability and multi-criteria optimization).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of this study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of this manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Soomro, M.; Tam, V.W.; Jorge Evangelista, A.C. 2—Production of cement and its environmental impact. In Recycled Concrete; Tam, V.W., Soomro, M., Jorge Evangelista, A.C., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Series in Civil and Structural Engineering; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2023; pp. 11–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nilimaa, J. Smart materials and technologies for sustainable concrete construction. Dev. Built Environ. 2023, 15, 100177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Angst, U.M.; Hooton, R.D.; Marchand, J.; Page, C.L.; Flatt, R.J.; Elsener, B.; Gehlen, C.; Gulikers, J. Present and future durability challenges for reinforced concrete structures. Mater. Corros. 2012, 63, 1047–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Krivenko, P. Why Alkaline Activation—60 Years of the Theory and Practice of Alkali-Activated Materials. J. Ceram. Sci. Technol. 2017, 8, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Amer, I.; Kohail, M.; El-Feky, M.; Rashad, A.; Khalaf, M.A. A review on alkali-activated slag concrete. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 12, 1475–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Palomo, A.; Monteiro, P.; Martauz, P.; Bilek, V.; Fernandez-Jimenez, A. Hybrid binders: A journey from the past to a sustainable future (opus caementicium futurum). Cem. Concr. Res. 2019, 124, 105829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pol Segura, I.; Ranjbar, N.; Juul Damø, A.; Skaarup Jensen, L.; Canut, M.; Arendt Jensen, P. A review: Alkali-activated cement and concrete production technologies available in the industry. Heliyon 2023, 9, e15718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Janotka, I.; Martauz, P.; Bačuvčík, M. Preferable use of hybrid cement in concrete intended for industrial application. In Proceedings of the 10th ACI/RILEM International Conference on Cementitious Materials and Alternative Binders for Sustainable Concrete (ICCM 2017), Montreal, QC, Canada, 2–4 October 2017; pp. 2.1–2.13. [Google Scholar]
  9. Janotka, I.; Martauz, P.; Bačuvčík, M.; Václavík, V. Fundamental Properties of Industrial Hybrid Cement Important for Application in Concrete. In Compressive Strength of Concrete; Kryvenko, P., Ed.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2019; Chapter 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Šejna, J.; Šulc, S.; Wald, F. Fire Protection of Steel and Concrete Structures by Alkali-Activated Cement—Adhesion and Fire Experiment. In Proceedings of the Architecture and Sustainable Development 22, Prague, Czech Republic, 16–20 December 2022; pp. 123–132. [Google Scholar]
  11. Dolado, J.; Goracci, G.; Martauz, P. Thermal properties of cementitious materials. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress on the Chemistry of Cement, Prague, Czech Republic, 16–20 September 2019. [Google Scholar]
  12. Li, Z.; Chen, Y.; Provis, J.L.; Cizer, Ö.; Ye, G. Autogenous shrinkage of alkali-activated slag: A critical review. Cem. Concr. Res. 2023, 172, 107244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mastali, M.; Kinnunen, P.; Dalvand, A.; Mohammadi Firouz, R.; Illikainen, M. Drying shrinkage in alkali-activated binders—A critical review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 190, 533–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Herath, C.; Gunasekara, C.; Law, D.W.; Setunge, S. Performance of high volume fly ash concrete incorporating additives: A systematic literature review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 258, 120606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mehta, P.K. High-performance, high-volume fly ash concrete for sustainable development. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Sustainable Development and Concrete Technology, Beijing, China, 20–21 May 2004; Iowa State University Ames: Ames, IA, USA, 2004; pp. 3–14. [Google Scholar]
  16. CEN/TC 51; EN 196-1 Methods of Testing Cement—Part 1: Determination of Strength. The European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
  17. ASTM C1698-19; Standard Test Method for Autogenous Strain of Cement Paste and Mortar. American Society for Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2019.
  18. CEN/TC 250; Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1-1: General Rules—Rules for Buildings, Bridges and Civil Engineering Structures, FprEN 1992-1-1:2022. The European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2022.
  19. RILEM Technical Committee TC-242-MDC (Z.P. Bažant, Chair). Model B4 for creep, drying shrinkage and autogenous shrinkage of normal and high-strength concretes with multi-decade applicability (RILEM Technical Committee TC-242-MDC multi-decade creep and shrinkage of concrete: Material model and structural analysis). Mater. Struct. 2015, 48, 753–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mohamed, R.; Abd Razak, R.; Abdullah, M.M.A.B.; Abd Rahim, S.Z.A.; Yuan-Li, L.; Subaer; Sandu, A.V.; Wysłocki, J.J. Heat evolution of alkali-activated materials: A review on influence factors. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 314, 125651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Li, Z.; Lu, T.; Liang, X.; Dong, H.; Ye, G. Mechanisms of autogenous shrinkage of alkali-activated slag and fly ash pastes. Cem. Concr. Res. 2020, 135, 106107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Termkhajornkit, P.; Nawa, T.; Nakai, M.; Saito, T. Effect of fly ash on autogenous shrinkage. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005, 35, 473–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Vlahinić, I.; Jennings, H.M.; Thomas, J.J. A constitutive model for drying of a partially saturated porous material. Mech. Mater. 2009, 41, 319–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Neville, A.M. Properties of Concrete; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  25. Arezoumandi, M.; Volz, J. A comparative study of the mechanical properties, fracture behavior, creep, and shrinkage of high-volume fly ash concrete. J. Sustain. Cem.-Based Mater. 2013, 2, 173–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vinkler, M.; Vítek, J. Drying and shrinkage of massive concrete wall segments—3 years experiment and analytical observations. Mater. Struct. 2019, 52, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bažant, Z.P.; Najjar, L.J. Nonlinear water diffusion in nonsaturated concrete. Mater. Struct. 1972, 5, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Šmilauer, V.; Dohnalová, L.; Jirásek, M.; Sanahuja, J.; Seetharam, S.; Babaei, S. Benchmarking Standard and Micromechanical Models for Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete Relevant for Nuclear Power Plants. Materials 2023, 16, 6751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Kristiawan, S.A.; Nugroho, A.P. Creep Behaviour of Self-compacting Concrete Incorporating High Volume Fly Ash and its Effect on the Long-term Deflection of Reinforced Concrete Beam. Procedia Eng. 2017, 171, 715–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Materials 17 04417 g001
Figure 1. Autogenous shrinkage measurement in corrugated tubes.
Figure 1. Autogenous shrinkage measurement in corrugated tubes.
Materials 17 04417 g001
Materials 17 04417 g002
Figure 2. Production of H-cement prisms for drying shrinkage measurements.
Figure 2. Production of H-cement prisms for drying shrinkage measurements.
Materials 17 04417 g002
Materials 17 04417 g003
Figure 3. Frames for drying shrinkage experiments.
Figure 3. Frames for drying shrinkage experiments.
Materials 17 04417 g003
Materials 17 04417 g004
Figure 4. Measurement of creep of H-cement concrete cylinders in rigs.
Figure 4. Measurement of creep of H-cement concrete cylinders in rigs.
Materials 17 04417 g004
Materials 17 04417 g005
Figure 5. Heat flow and released heat from isothermal calorimetry.
Figure 5. Heat flow and released heat from isothermal calorimetry.
Materials 17 04417 g005
Materials 17 04417 g006
Figure 6. Autogenous shrinkage of pastes.
Figure 6. Autogenous shrinkage of pastes.
Materials 17 04417 g006
Materials 17 04417 g007
Figure 7. Drying shrinkage of mortars made from H-cement and CEM II/B-S 32.5 R cement.
Figure 7. Drying shrinkage of mortars made from H-cement and CEM II/B-S 32.5 R cement.
Materials 17 04417 g007
Materials 17 04417 g008
Figure 8. Mass loss of two mortars with cross-sections of 30 × 30 mm.
Figure 8. Mass loss of two mortars with cross-sections of 30 × 30 mm.
Materials 17 04417 g008
Materials 17 04417 g009
Figure 9. Relationship between drying shrinkage and mass loss of two mortars.
Figure 9. Relationship between drying shrinkage and mass loss of two mortars.
Materials 17 04417 g009
Materials 17 04417 g010
Figure 10. Drying shrinkage of concrete made from H-cement.
Figure 10. Drying shrinkage of concrete made from H-cement.
Materials 17 04417 g010
Materials 17 04417 g011
Figure 11. Basic creep of concrete made from H-cement. Filled area denotes standard deviation of each creep model.
Figure 11. Basic creep of concrete made from H-cement. Filled area denotes standard deviation of each creep model.
Materials 17 04417 g011
Materials 17 04417 g012
Figure 12. Total creep of concrete made from H-cement. Filled area denotes standard deviation of a model.
Figure 12. Total creep of concrete made from H-cement. Filled area denotes standard deviation of a model.
Materials 17 04417 g012
Table 1. Characteristic oxide composition of materials.
Table 1. Characteristic oxide composition of materials.
CaOSiO2Al2O3Fe2O3MgOSO3K2ONa2O
Clinker (20%)66.1321.695.312.831.440.531.000.04
Fly ash (65%)3.3651.4226.937.272.100.873.280.17
Slag (10%)34.9235.858.360.436.151.610.740.21
Alkali activator (5%)-----55.78-43.02
H-cement17.0946.9116.916.471.683.653.172.52
CEM II/B-S 32.5 R54.8726.336.062.564.082.340.670.26
Table 2. Strength evolution according to EN 196-1. H-cement used w/c = 0.40.
Table 2. Strength evolution according to EN 196-1. H-cement used w/c = 0.40.
w/cCompressive Strength [MPa]Flexural Strength [MPa]
2 Days28 Days90 Days2 Days28 Days90 Days
H-cement0.4017.5 ± 3.036.5 ± 4.041.5 ± 3.03.5 ± 0.54.4 ± 0.49.0 ± 0.3
CEM II/B-S 32.5 R0.5013.4 ± 1.046.5 ± 0.960.0 ± 1.13.1 ± 0.38.9 ± 0.210.2 ± 0.3
Table 3. Mix design.
Table 3. Mix design.
ItemReference, Mortar (kg/m3)H-Cement, Mortar (kg/m3)H-Cement, Concrete (kg/m3)
H-cement 490350
CEM II/B-S 32.5 R516
Water232221158
Normal sand 0/215481470
Fine aggregate 0/4 mm, Dobříň 835
Coarse aggregate 4/8 mm, Zbraslav 320
Coarse aggregate 8/16 mm, Zbraslav 713
Plasticizer (lignosulfonates) 3.42.4
Water/cement0.450.450.45
Aggregate/cement3.003.005.34
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Šmilauer, V.; Dohnalová, L.; Martauz, P. Shrinkage and Creep Properties of Low-Carbon Hybrid Cement. Materials 2024, 17, 4417. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17174417

AMA Style

Šmilauer V, Dohnalová L, Martauz P. Shrinkage and Creep Properties of Low-Carbon Hybrid Cement. Materials. 2024; 17(17):4417. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17174417

Chicago/Turabian Style

Šmilauer, Vít, Lenka Dohnalová, and Pavel Martauz. 2024. "Shrinkage and Creep Properties of Low-Carbon Hybrid Cement" Materials 17, no. 17: 4417. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17174417

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop