Evaluates drying shrinkage and micro-mechanisms in low-carbon cement concrete, suggesting improved durability with specific additives.
This research systematically evaluated the durability performance of low-carbon cement concrete prepared with industrial solid wastes under harsh service conditions. Measurements included mechanical properties and drying shrinkage. Microstructural characterization was carried out using SEM-EDS, MIP, and TG-DTG, revealing a synergistic relationship between microstructural changes and the resulting mechanical and durability behavior of the concrete. The experimental results indicated that adding 25% fly ash (FA) lowered the compressive strength of the CF-25 and BF-25 concrete by 11.30% and 11.39%, respectively, while reducing drying shrinkage by roughly 9.2–9.5%. In comparison, incorporating 5% silica fume (SF) had contrasting effects. It significantly improved the compressive strength of the CS-5 and BS-5 concrete by 18.92% and 9.94%, respectively, but at the cost of increasing drying shrinkage by 6.30% and 18.68%, respectively. Fractal dimension analysis based on thermodynamic relationships showed that the pore structure fractal dimension (Ds) ranged from 2.88 to 2.93. Group C exhibited a higher Ds (2.93) than Group B (2.90), indicating a more intricate pore network associated with greater C-S-H gel formation. With FA addition, Ds decreased to 2.91601 for CF-25 but rose to 2.93244 for BF-25. With SF addition, Ds fell to 2.91182 for CS-5 and 2.88102 for BS-5. Micro-mechanistic analysis revealed that the limited pozzolanic activity of FA at early ages resulted in insufficient hydration products and increased porosity. In contrast, SF contributed to a dense, highly polymerized gel structure and an optimized pore size distribution through its strong pozzolanic reactivity and nano-filling action. The distinct chemical properties of high-calcium and low-calcium cementitious systems further accentuated the differential influences of these supplementary cementitious materials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: