This comprehensive review examines the effects of steam, carbonation, and autoclave curing on mechanical and durability properties in ultra high-performance concrete, indicating potential...
Ultra high‐performance concrete (UHPC) is a material that brings revolutionary changes to modern building construction due to its outstanding mechanical, durability, and microstructural properties. This study investigates the impacts of these properties under three distinct curing regimes—steam curing, carbonation curing (CC), and autoclave curing (AC), based on the material’s performance in contemporary construction. To determine structural feasibility under three curing regimes, this study focuses on mechanical properties, including compressive, flexural, and tensile strengths, and modulus of elasticity. It also focuses on the durability properties of UHPC, including water permeability, ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV), thermal conductivity, sorptivity, and electrical resistivity. To understand the mechanisms of matrix densification and crack resistance, this study focuses on comprehensive microstructural characterization, including pore structure analysis to assess voids and densification, thermal analysis using thermogravimetric (TG)‐DSC to evaluate hydration products and phase changes, and SEM imaging. The reviewed evidence indicates that steam curing most consistently enhances early‐age mechanical properties, AC produces the most refined microstructure and lowest transport‐related indicators, and CC offers pore refinement together with CO 2 sequestration potential, although its mechanical benefits are more condition‐dependent. However, the relative benefits of each curing regime depend strongly on curing intensity, mixture design, moisture state, and microstructural response. This study not only focuses on the effects of three curing regimes on UHPC but also provides guidelines to enhance the material’s functional properties and promote its broader use in high‐performance, sustainable infrastructure. Further, this review provides a comparative and mechanism‐based framework for selecting curing regimes according to target mechanical, durability, microstructural, and sustainability objectives.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Datta et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: