Next Article in Journal
Tailored Time–Temperature Transformation Diagram for IN718 Alloy Obtained via Powder Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing: Phase Behavior and Precipitation Dynamic
Previous Article in Journal
Field Measurement and Analysis on the Mechanical Response of Asphalt Pavement Using Large-Particle-Size Crushed Stone Base Treated with Fly Ash and Slag Powder
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impermeability and Durability of Self-Compacting Concrete Prepared with Aeolian Sand and Recycled Coarse Aggregate

1
College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Xinjiang University, Urumqi 830017, China
2
Key Laboratory of Building Structure and Seismic Resistance of Xinjiang, Urumqi 830017, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2023, 16(23), 7279; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16237279
Submission received: 17 October 2023 / Revised: 17 November 2023 / Accepted: 20 November 2023 / Published: 22 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Construction and Building Materials)

Abstract

:
Self-compacting concrete has seen extensive application in both engineering and construction. In order to save building resources, aeolian sand—recycled coarse aggregate self-compacting concrete (ARSCC) is created by partially substituting recycled coarse aggregates (RCA) and aeolian sand (AS) for natural coarse aggregates. For ten groups with different mechanical and durable properties, this study examined the effects of sulfate erosion, chloride penetration resistance, and related impermeability, as well as AS replacement ratios of 20%, 40%, and 60% and RCA replacement ratios of 25%, 50%, and 75% in ARSCC and a control group (A0-R0). According to the study’s findings, after sulfate attack, the highest relative dynamic elastic modulus and corrosion resistance factor were obtained with the 20% AS replacement ratio and 50% RCA replacement ratio (A20-R50). The highest impermeability grade and lowest electric flux were obtained with the 20% AS replacement ratio and 25% RCA replacement ratio (A20-R25). X-ray diffraction (XRD) and mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) revealed that the addition of aeolian sand and recycled coarse aggregates improved the pore structure of the SCC and increased the densification of the self-compacting concrete, particularly following sulfate attack. This study highlights the importance of recycled aggregates and aeolian sand in engineering applications and the sustainable growth of the concrete industry, both of which support resource conservation and environmental protection.

1. Introduction

The quality, appropriate use, and environmental impact of recycled materials present a difficult situation in the construction business today. In order to produce high-quality concrete, which can have aggregate compositions of up to three-fourths of the volume of the concrete, the construction industry needs a vast amount of natural resources due to increased urbanization [1]. Therefore, alternative materials from construction and demolition (C&D) waste and less-used natural resources can be used in the production of concrete to address the issue of the excessive use of aggregates (fine and coarse). This reduces land waste, lowers the cost of concrete, and conserves valuable natural resources. Currently, employing aggregate recycled from concrete and construction is the most promising choice out of a variety of options. In this study, less-utilized natural resources such as aeolian sand (AS) from deserts were selected.
In an effort to increase the longevity of concrete constructions, self-compacting concrete (SCC) was introduced in 1988 [2]. Subsequently, SCC has had significant growth and has had a significant impact on civil engineering, being applied to a wide range of construction projects worldwide, including office buildings, tunnels in Japan, highway bridges in Sweden, and useful structures in China, the United States, the Netherlands, and Thailand [3,4,5]. Recycled coarse aggregate self-compacting concrete (RCASCC), which combines recycled coarse aggregate (RCA) with SCC, has been the subject of extensive research due to the growing awareness of human impact on the environment. The most common replacement ratios are 25%, 50%, and 75% [6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. Therefore, the use of RCASCC is both technically feasible and justified; nevertheless, care must be taken to ensure that the performance characteristics of this type of concrete are adequate to meet the requirements of each individual situation [13].
Globally available aeolian sand can be converted into a green resource through appropriate processing and use [14,15]. Due to the scarcity of natural resources in recent years, a large number of researchers have examined the use of aeolian sand (AS) in concrete globally. Their research primarily focuses on AS as a raw material for concrete, with the expectation that it will eventually serve as the primary fine aggregate in concrete and construction [16,17,18,19]. There are two primary results on AS replacement: (1) there exists an ideal ratio for AS replacement [20,21,22], and (2) the use of AS alone has adverse impacts on the characteristics of concrete and construction [15,17,23]. Consequently, research on local deserts is required, and the use of AS in concrete is both technically feasible and warranted.
Numerous studies have been conducted on the mechanical and durability characteristics of aeolian sand concrete, RCASCC, and recycled aggregate concrete. Trends in the durability characteristics of concrete made with RCA and AS [24] have been documented in the literature. These characteristics include water permeability [25,26], resistance to chloride penetration [27,28], sulfate attack [29,30], and freeze–thaw resistance [31,32,33]. In conclusion, SCC allows for the addition of AS and RCA.
Thus, this study’s goal is to lower building costs and reinforce the idea of sustainability by employing recycled coarse aggregates and fine materials such as AS. Furthermore, it examines and emphasizes how replacing these materials affects water permeability and the long-term effectiveness of ARSCC in sulfate settings.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

2.1.1. Binder, Admixtures, and Water

Fly ash from the Xinjiang Zhongtian Yintai firm and PO42.5 Portland cement, which complies with the standard, were utilized as binders in all concrete combinations during the production process. The specific gravity and specific surface area of Portland cement are 354 m2/kg. The cubic concrete specimens prepared for this study had a strength rating of C30. Table 1 lists the characteristic features of Portland cement, and Table 2 lists the fly ash’s performance.
The fresh concrete was made sufficiently workable, and the water–binder ratio was lowered by using a water reducer with a water reduction rate of roughly 25–30%. The water utilized in this study is from Urumqi, where water is typically sourced from to make concrete.

2.1.2. Fine Aggregate

To make ARSCC, aeolian sand was extracted from the Gurbantungut Desert in northern Xinjiang. The ARSCC’s performance is greatly impacted by the characteristics of aeolian sand. This study’s fine aggregate’s fundamental physical characteristics are displayed in Table 3. Figure 1 shows the fine aggregate particle size distributions obtained via sieve analysis.

2.1.3. Coarse Aggregate

Recycled concrete aggregates were derived from Urumqi’s concrete waste. The research generally agrees that there is less mortar adhered to coarse recycled aggregate than fine recycled aggregate [34,35]. This results in the RCA having a greater quality than the fine fraction of recycled aggregate, and in this sense, it makes sense to improve the quality of a material that is relatively better than a lower-quality material [36]. According to this study, the proportion of aggregate retained between 2.36 and 19 mm sieves is known as the RCA. Table 4 displays the fundamental physical characteristics of the coarse aggregate employed in this investigation. Figure 2 shows the coarse aggregate particle size distributions obtained via sieve analysis.

2.2. Sample Preparation

Table 5 displays the proportions of the mixture. While mass substitution was chosen for engineering applications and ease of calculation because the density difference between NS and AS is only 54.9 kg/m3, volume substitution was chosen to preserve the stability of the concrete’s constituent parts after substitution and the substitution rate. The AS replacement ratios of 0%, 20%, 40%, and 60% by mass are represented by A0, A20, A40, and S60; the RCA replacement ratios of 0%, 25%, 50%, and 75% by volume are represented by R0, R25, R50, and R75. Water-to-binder (W/B) ratio was 0.33. Prior to molding, the experimental mixes including the different AS and RCA replacement ratios underwent a workability test, as indicated in Table 6. The specimens were poured, left for 24 h, and then cured for 28 days at 20 °C and 95% relative humidity under conventional curing conditions before being demold. To obtain the average value, each test sample was measured three times per group.

2.3. Workability Tests

As seen in Figure 3, the workability test of fresh ARSCC was carried out in compliance with specifications. Three common behaviors were shown on the workability test: segregation, passing, and filling abilities. In slump flow experiments, the viscosity and flowability of the new mix were evaluated by measuring the slump flow diameter. The segregation of fresh ARSCC was assessed using segregation resistance, and the passage ability was assessed using the J-ring test.

2.4. Compressive Strength Tests

After 28 days of curing, compressive strength tests were performed on all ARSCC mixes in compliance with the standard. Cube specimens measuring 150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm and 100 mm × 100 mm × 100 mm were prepared for the tests.

2.5. Resistance Water and Chloride Penetration Tests

Hard ARSCC’s resistance to chloride penetration was determined with coulomb electric flux tests, and its resistance to water penetration was determined with progressive pressure loading tests using standard procedures. Furthermore, the dimensions of the test components are as follows: for water penetration testing, the round table body was Ø 175 mm × Ø 185 mm × 150 mm, and for electric flux tests, the cylinder measured Ø 100 mm × 50 mm.

2.5.1. Gradual Pressure Loading Tests

For four of the six examples in each group, the maximum seepage pressure multiplied by 10 yielded the grade of seepage resistance of the concrete in the absence of seepage. The formula for calculating the seepage resistance grade of concrete is P = 10H − 1, where P represents the impermeability grade and H denotes the seepage pressure (MPa) at which three out of the six specimens experience seepage.

2.5.2. Electric Flux Tests

NaCl solution with a mass concentration of 3% and NaOH solution with a molar concentration of 0.3 mol/L were simultaneously injected into both sides of the test tank to provide access to 60 V direct current after the specimen was placed into the specimen tank to verify the device’s sealing. The initial current reading, I0, was recorded with the positive electrode on the NaOH side and the negative electrode on the NaCl side. As seen in Figure 4, the current value was collected both during and after the test, and it remained active for six hours.

2.6. Resistance to Sulfate Attack Tests

Hard ARSCC tests were used to determine how resistant the concrete was to sulfate attacks using established methods. The specimens in this study were totally submerged in a 5% Na2SO4 solution for 15 h, followed by 6 h of drying as part of a 22 h drying–wetting process using HC-LSB concrete sulfate dry–wet cycle testing equipment (Figure 5). For 120 days, there were cycles of drying and soaking. The test pieces were designed as cube specimens (100 mm × 100 mm × 100 mm) for compressive strength and prism specimens (100 mm × 100 mm × 400 mm) for mass and elasticity variation.

2.6.1. Mass Variation

With an accuracy of 0.1 g, the mass variations in the specimens under various dry–wet cycles were measured using an electronic balance. After the specimens were dried for 48 h at 45 °C in an oven, the mass was measured. The formula Dmi = (mi − m0) 100%/m0, where m0 is the starting mass and mi is the mass after N of the dry and wet cycle, can be used to calculate the mass change Dm.

2.6.2. Relative Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity

Using a nonmetallic ultrasonic testing analyzer, the concrete’s dynamic modulus of elasticity was determined. The sound velocity of the initial peak value of an ultrasonic wave traveling through the specimens was measured with the instrument, and the sound speed was translated into the concrete’s dynamic elastic modulus. Equations (1) and (2) provide an illustration of the precise formula:
P i = f n i 2 f 0 i 2
P = 1 3 1 = 1 3 P i
where Pi is the relative dynamic elastic modulus of the i th concrete sample after N dry and wet cycles; f n i  is the transverse fundamental frequency of the i th concrete test block after N dry and wet cycles; f 0 i is the initial value of transverse fundamental frequency of the i th concrete sample after N dry and wet cycles; and P is the relative dynamic elastic modulus of a group of concrete sample after N dry and wet cycles.

2.6.3. Corrosion Resistance Factor

The ratio of the compressive strength of concrete specimens subjected to sulfate dry–wet cycle erosion to the compressive strength of the concrete specimens subjected to ordinary curing is known as the corrosion resistance factor [37]. Equation (3) provides an illustration of the exact formula:
K f = f c n f c 0 × 100 %
where K f is the corrosion resistance factor (%); f c n is the compressive strength of a group of concrete specimens after N wet and dry sulfate cycles; and f c 0 is the compressive strength of a group of concrete specimens under standard curing.

2.7. X-ray Diffraction (XRD)

An X-ray diffractometer (Bruker D8 advance) was utilized to assess the substances’ composition and content. Samples of cement mortar without gravel were chosen from the same group of sample fragments and crushed, mixed evenly, and filtered using a 300 mesh screen after the compressive strength test was finished. In the end, 1 g of each sample group was extracted for the X-ray diffraction (XRD) test. Following the test, all of the XRD samples were extracted from the pieces and pulverized in an agate mortar. The data files that were collected were then processed using MDI Jade, and graphs were created. XRD was carried out in the 2θ range of 10–75° at a scanning speed of 2°/min in the 2θ range of.

2.8. Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry (MIP)

An AutoPore Iv 9510 from American Micromeritics was utilized to perform mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) testing, which measures the changes in pore structure characteristics caused by sulfate assault. The pressure range tested was 0.2 MPa to 415 MPa. By chopping the concrete into roughly 1 cm3 cubes and drying it in the same conditions as the XRD experiments, the concrete samples for the MIP were taken from the surface of concrete cylinder specimens.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Workability and Compressive Strength

Table 7 shows the workability of fresh concrete in terms of segregation, filling ability, and passing ability. The figure illustrates the ARSCC’s slump flow, segregation resistance, and J-ring. Given the disparity in the replacement ratios between A0-R0 and A60-R75, this suggests that the AS and RCA replacement ratios negatively impact the flowability and passing ability of fresh ARSCC. The workability of fresh ARSCC is not significantly affected by the replacement ratios of 25% and 50%, nor by the replacement ratio of 20% AS. In terms of flowability, A60-R75’s slump flow is 554 mm, which is 102 mm less than that of the comparison group A0-R0. In addition, the J-ring shrank from 12 mm to 1 mm, exhibiting a clear propensity toward blockage. Furthermore, all ARSCC segregation resistance values are below 12%, suggesting a higher degree of segregation.
Figure 6 illustrates the impact the impact of the SA and RCA replacement ratios on the compressive strength of ARSCC at 7 and 28 days of curing. In the figure, it can be observed that when the AS is fixed, the compressive strength increases initially before gradually decreasing as the RCA replacement ratio increases. The inflection point occurs at the 50% replacement ratio. Conversely, when RCA is fixed, the compressive strength gradually decreases as the AS replacement ratio increases. Comparing the compressive strength to the control group, A0-R0, there was a maximum increase of 0.4 MPa and a minimum decrease of 4.8 MPa; the highest value was 33.3 MPa for A20-R50, and the minimum value was 28.1 MPa for A60-R75. This suggests that replacing AS and RCA does not significantly affect the compressive strength of hard ARSCC, given that replacing SA with an appropriate ratio and NCA with a similar RCA content optimizes the gradation of concrete aggregates and increases compactness.

3.2. Impermeability Grade and Electric Flux

Table 8 displays the electric flux and maximum water pressure test results. It appears that when the replacement ratios of AS and RCA increase, the trends of the impermeability grade and electric flux decrease. In comparison to the control group (A0-R0), A20-R25 and A20-R50 exhibit superior impermeability and resistance to chloride penetration. In fact, their electric flux and impermeability grade increased by one grade and decreased by 9.83 C, respectively. However, mistakes in the device’s measurement could be the reason for the anomalous electric flux of A60-R25. The compactness of ARSCC is somewhat improved by the replacement of AS and RCA. In order to increase the compactness of ARSCC, AS can be used to fill the smaller pores at a low replacement ratio and give the cement greater surface area for hydration. This demonstrates that ARSCC produced with an appropriate replacement ratio can perform on par with or even better than the control concrete.
Figure 7 illustrates the relationship between the electric flux and the impermeability grade. After linear fitting, it was discovered that there is a distinct linear association (R2 = 0.758); if the A60-R25 sample is removed, R2 = 0.996 is achieved. The 6 h electric flux of ARSCC exhibits a declining trend as the impermeability grade rises. As a result, water finds it more difficult to pass through ARSCC at certain pressures, which is also indicative of the material’s increasing compactness, decreasing internal pore space, and steadily declining total permeability. Chloride ions also find it challenging to pass through ARSCC. As the impermeability grade rises, the electric flux tends to decrease. The ideal relationship between concrete’s electric flux and impermeability grade would be a strong linear one. However, because ARSCC is a non-homogeneous material, interference from multiple factors might affect its own state. Additionally, there will be varying degrees of impact on the concrete’s exterior morphology and interior structure in the specimen used for molding, curing, vibration, grinding, and other tests. As a result, ARSCC’s attributes cannot be fully represented in a linear relationship during the fitting process.

3.3. Durability

3.3.1. Visual Examination

Figure 8 illustrates the visual examination of ARSCC prism specimens subjected to 0, 60, and 120 days of sulfate dry–wet cycle erosion. The ARSCCs exhibited negligible surface degradation overall.
The specimens show varying degrees of damage following varying periods of sulfate dry–wet cycle erosion. After 60 cycles, there was less mortar on the specimen’s exterior and around the prism’s edge, making the erosion phenomenon less noticeable. Following 120 cycles, the specimen’s prism cracks on the outside became more severe. The holes and cracks in the mortar on the specimen’s surface steadily enlarged as the number of sulfate dry–wet cycle erosion events increased; the pores were accompanied by noticeable white particles. Preliminary speculation suggests that the precipitated sulfate crystals were erosion products like ettringite or gypsum. The production of gypsum and secondary ettringite, which exert tension in the expanding concrete, is predicted by the attack model put forth by Santhanam et al. [38] in response to a pH shift in the concrete surface. But as soon as the concrete applies compressive force on the solution’s surface, the solution can reach the interior zones that are broken, which causes the cracks to emerge [39].

3.3.2. Mass Loss Rate

The mass loss has been measured in the range of −1.048% to 0.724% for ARSCC mixtures. As seen in Figure 9, in order to highlight the damage, these results are discussed in terms of the mass loss caused to the ARSCC mixtures following exposure to sulfate attacks. As the number of dry–wet cycles increased, the mass loss first reduced and then increased. For instance, the mass loss of the A20-R25 specimen was approximately −1.05% to −0.32%, while the A20-R50 specimen had a strength loss of −0.90% to −0.11%. Compared to combinations comprising other replacement ratios, low replacement ratios of AS and RCA demonstrated a significantly superior resistance to sulfate assault. Furthermore, these findings show that, in comparison to A0-R0 (control), appropriate replacement ratios of AS and RCA result in less mass loss.

3.3.3. Relative Dynamic Elastic Modulus

The dynamic elastic modulus was used to analyze the mechanical properties of concrete with the effect of freeze–thaw cycles. It assesses the compactness and faults in concrete with ultrasonic velocity [40,41]. For both the freeze–thaw and dry–wet sulfate cycles, the damage mechanisms on the concrete varied, but the damage processes and outcomes were largely the same. Consequently, in this investigation, the damage caused to the ARSCC throughout the sulfate dry–wet cycle can be described by the relative dynamic elastic modulus. Figure 10 illustrates how the relative dynamic elasticity modulus of ARSCC changes at different replacement ratios. All mixture groups showed an increasing tendency for the first sixty cycles, with A20-R25 showing the highest increase at sixty cycles. This is as a result of the low replacement ratios of AS and RCA, which improved cement hydration and made the SCC more compact. However, A20-R50 saw a gradual decline after 60 cycles in contrast to the other groups, including the control group A0-R0. A20-R50 saw a reduction in the relative dynamic elasticity modulus of 11.55%, A0-R0 saw a reduction of 12.80% from 103.87% to 91.07%, and A20-R25 saw a reduction of 14.80% from 104.79% to 89.99%. A20-R50 demonstrated improved resistance to sulfate attacks after higher numbers of cycles. It is possible that the RCA has been fully hydrated after a certain number of cycles and is finding it challenging to react with SO42−.

3.3.4. Corrosion Resistance Factor

Table 9 displays the outcomes of the compressive strength following sulfur attacks. All groups’ compressive strengths increased during the first thirty cycles: A20-R50 and A20-R25 increased by 1.9 and 1.7 MPa, respectively, while the control group, A0-R0, increased by 1.5 MPa.
The compressive strengths of A20-R50 and A20-R25 declined by 4.9 MPa and 3.1 MPa after 30 to 120 cycles, respectively, compared with their strengths after 30 cycles. The compressive strength of A0-R0 decreased by 4.9 MPa. The findings of the ARSCC’s corrosion resistance factors are displayed in Figure 11. When comparing the corrosion resistance of ARSCC to its compressive strength, the corrosion resistance factor can provide a more accurate picture.
The production of C-S-H gels and the continual hydration of cement could be the cause of the 30-cycle corrosion resistance factor loss in the A0-R0 samples (−4.56%), A20-R25, and A20-R50 samples (−5.28% and −5.71%); however, the microcrack accumulation was enormous [42]. The corrosion products that compressed and condensed during the first thirty cycles showed an increase in compressive strength in ARSCC. Ettringite expansion products may cause volume expansion and expansive stress after 30 cycles, surpassing the maximum tensile strength of ARSCC. This can cause damage and microcracks to occur, hastening the degradation of ARSCC [43]. A20-R50 exhibits improvements in compressive strength and corrosion resistance factor, while A20-R25 is comparable to SCC (A0-R0) in terms of sulfate resistance.

3.4. Impermeability Grade and Durability

Figure 12 illustrates the relationship between durability and impermeability grade. Following linear fitting, it was possible to determine that there are distinct linear relationships, with R2 = 0.827 for mass change, R2 = 0.803 for relative dynamic elastic modulus, and R2 = 0.904 for corrosion resistance factor. It is evident that impermeability grade and durability are positively correlated. This is because water finds it difficult to pass through ARSCC at standard pressures. It is difficult to penetrate into ARSCC with SO42− ions, which also represents the increase in the compactness of ARSCC. Internal pore space is limited, and only the surface of the pore solution reacts. Concurrently, the fitted curve of the relative dynamic elastic modulus not only has the maximum R2, but also the maximum slope, demonstrating the benefit of the improved compaction, impermeability, and durability of ARSCC.

4. XRD and MIP Analysis

4.1. XRD Analysis

The XRD patterns for samples of every mixture following the sulfate attack are seen in Figure 13. The samples of the mixtures A0-R0 and A20-R50 following 120 dry–wet cycles have noticeable ettringite peaks and less intense peaks for Ca(OH)2 when compared to samples with varying replacement ratios. Meanwhile, there are clear Ca(OH)2 peaks in the A60-R75 sample following 120 dry–wet cycles. Ettringite production is accelerated by corrosion time. As per the earlier research, the process of concrete corrosion due to sulfate attacks can be explained as follows: in the pore solution, the dissolved hydrated calcium hydroxide is devoured by the sulfate ions in the chemical reaction, leading to the creation of gypsum [44,45]. Then, as a result of the cement’s hydration, mono-sulfoaluminate (AFm) or ettringite (Aft) may further form in the micropores. However, AFm may also react with gypsum and pass through into the more stable phase of ettringite, as demonstrated by the chemical reaction represented by Equations (4)–(6) [43]. It is discovered that a high AS and RCA replacement ratio creates more room for products to form and makes it easier for SCC to disrupt the pore structure, which results in the appearance of more severe ettringite peaks [46]. The findings of the mass change and relative dynamic elastic modulus variation in Section 3.3.2 and Section 3.3.3 are supported by the XRD pattern results.
C a O H 2 + N a 2 S O 4 + 2 H 2 O C a S O 4 2 H 2 O G y p s u m + 2 N a O H
3 C a O A l 2 O 3 + 3 C a S O 4 2 H 2 O + 26 H 2 O 3 C a O A l 2 O 3 3 C a S O 4 32 H 2 O E t t r i n g i t e  
2 C a S O 4 2 H 2 O + 3 C a O A l 2 O 3 C a S O 4 12 H 2 O A F m + 16 H 2 O 3 C a O A l 2 O 3 3 C a S O 4 32 H 2 O E t t r i n g i t e #

4.2. MIP Analysis

As illustrated in Figure 14 and Figure 15, MIP tests were performed on samples of the A0-R0 and A20-R50 mixtures prior to the sulfate assault, on A0-R0B and A20-R50B, and on all mixtures following the sulfate attack. The prior work identified four main categories for concrete pores: macropores (width > 1000 nm), capillary holes (diameter 100–1000 nm), gel pores (diameter < 10 nm), and transitional pores (diameter 10–100 nm) [47,48]. In general, it is believed that gel holes may have a significant impact on the durability of concrete; pores bigger than 10 μm may have an impact on the compressive strength of concrete [47]. When the pore distributions of A0-R0B and A20-R50B were compared, it was discovered that A20-R50 had more gel pores and macropores prior to sulfate assault. Following a sulfate assault, the pore distribution of A20-R50 and A20-R25 is comparable to that of A0-R0, but there are fewer gel pores and macropores. This indicates that the corrosion resistance of ARSCC is caused by a proportionate decrease in gel pores and macropores. The mass change and relative dynamic elastic modulus variation results in Section 3.3.2 and Section 3.3.3 are supported by the MIP results.

5. Conclusions

This study used the impermeability grade, electric flux, mass loss rate, relative dynamic elastic modulus, and corrosion resistance factor to examine the durability and impermeability of aeolian sand–recycled aggregate self-compacting concrete (ARSCC). The ARSCC was examined under a microscope both before and after the sulfate attack. The study’s primary conclusions are as follows:
  • As the replacement ratios of AS and RCA increase, the compressive strengths of 7 and 28 days first rise and then decrease thereafter, peaking at 20% AS replacement and 50% RCA replacement. This result implies that self-compacting concrete’s compressive strength can be raised by appropriately replacing the amount of AS and RCA.
  • Self-compacting concrete responds to the addition of AS and RCA with exceptional impermeability and durability. The link between durability and impermeability is unambiguously linear. The combination of increasing amounts of AS and RCA lowers the grade of impermeability significantly and speeds up the pace of degradation at later stages because the fine particles of AS and high porosity of RCA create additional channels for water and SO42− erosion, followed by the gradual enlargement of gel pores and macropores.
  • The XRD analysis reveals that ettringite, AFt, and CaSO4 are the results of sulfate erosion. A20-R50 has superior compactness and resistance to sulfate assault, as seen by the pore distribution following the sulfate attack. Incorporating AS and RCA increases cement hydration and decreases erosion product generation. The erosion products gradually increase, the pores enlarge, and the resistance to sulfate attack decreases as the AS and RCA replacement ratio increases.
  • A thorough examination of the workability, compressive strength, impermeability grade, electric flux, and resistance to sulfate attack indicates that the appropriate replacement ratio is 20% AS to 50% RCA. This study’s narrow scope prevents a thorough evaluation of ARSCC’s performance; instead, it merely serves as a guide for the usage of ARSCC in specific contexts. It is hoped that increasingly complicated operating conditions, like loaded sulfate coupling, loaded freeze–thaw coupling, and chloride salt freeze–thaw coupling, can be researched for ARSCC.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Q.L.; Methodology, Q.L.; Formal analysis, S.Z., F.H. and J.Z.; Investigation, S.Z., S.L. and G.Z.; Data curation, S.L. and G.Z.; Writing—original draft, S.Z.; Writing—review & editing, S.Z., Q.L., F.H. and J.Z.; Project administration, Q.L.; Funding acquisition, Q.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Study on Deterioration Mechanism of Aeolian Sand Recycle Aggregate Self-Compacting Concrete in Cold and Saline Area, grant number 52168037.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kumar, S.; Sahu, A.; Srivastava, A.K.L. Effect of Copper Slag on Recycled Aggregate Based Self-Compacting Concrete. Mater. Today Proc. 2023, S2214785323044176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Okamura, H.; Ouchi, M. Self-Compacting Concrete. J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 2003, 1, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Malazdrewicz, S.; Adam Ostrowski, K.; Sadowski, Ł. Self-Compacting Concrete with Recycled Coarse Aggregates from Concrete Construction and Demolition Waste—Current State-of-the Art and Perspectives. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 370, 130702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Persson, B. A Comparison between Mechanical Properties of Self-Compacting Concrete and the Corresponding Properties of Normal Concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2001, 31, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ouchi, M.; Nakamura, S.; Osterberg, T.; Hallberg, S.-E. Applications of Self-Compacting Concrete in Japan, Europe and the United States. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium, ISHPC 2003, Tokyo, Japan, 20–22 October 2003. [Google Scholar]
  6. Alexandridou, C.; Angelopoulos, G.N.; Coutelieris, F.A. Mechanical and Durability Performance of Concrete Produced with Recycled Aggregates from Greek Construction and Demolition Waste Plants. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 176, 745–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Etxeberria, M.; Vázquez, E.; Marí, A.; Barra, M. Influence of Amount of Recycled Coarse Aggregates and Production Process on Properties of Recycled Aggregate Concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2007, 37, 735–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fiol, F.; Thomas, C.; Muñoz, C.; Ortega-López, V.; Manso, J.M. The Influence of Recycled Aggregates from Precast Elements on the Mechanical Properties of Structural Self-Compacting Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 182, 309–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Revathi, P.; Selvi, R.S.; Velin, S.S. Investigations on Fresh and Hardened Properties of Recycled Aggregate Self Compacting Concrete. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A 2013, 94, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Boudali, S.; Kerdal, D.E.; Ayed, K.; Abdulsalam, B.; Soliman, A.M. Performance of Self-Compacting Concrete Incorporating Recycled Concrete Fines and Aggregate Exposed to Sulphate Attack. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 124, 705–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mohammed, V.R.; Abdulhaleem, K.N.; Hamada, H.M.; Humada, A.M.; Majdi, A. Effect of Recycled Aggregate Concrete and Steel Fibers on the Fresh Properties of Self-Compacting Concrete. E3S Web Conf. 2023, 427, 02013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Abdulhaleem, K.N.; Van Mohammed, R.; Hamada, H.M.; Humada, A.M.; Majdi, A. Effect of Recycled Aggregate Concrete and Steel Fibers on the Strength of Self-Compacting Concrete. E3S Web Conf. 2023, 427, 02012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Santos, S.; Da Silva, P.; De Brito, J. Self-Compacting Concrete with Recycled Aggregates—A Literature Review. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 22, 349–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Xue, H.; Shen, X.; Liu, Q.; Wang, R.; Liu, Z. Analysis of the Damage to the Aeolian Sand Concrete Surfaces Caused by Wind-Sand Erosion. J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 2017, 15, 724–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Li, Y.; Zhang, H.; Liu, G.; Hu, D.; Ma, X. Multi-Scale Study on Mechanical Property and Strength Prediction of Aeolian Sand Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 247, 118538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Padmakumar, G.P.; Srinivas, K.; Uday, K.V.; Iyer, K.R.; Pathak, P.; Keshava, S.M.; Singh, D.N. Characterization of Aeolian Sands from Indian Desert. Eng. Geol. 2012, 139–140, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Seif, E.-S.S.A. Assessing the Engineering Properties of Concrete Made with Fine Dune Sands: An Experimental Study. Arab J. Geosci. 2013, 6, 857–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, G.; Song, J.; Yang, J.; Liu, X. Performance of Mortar and Concrete Made with a Fine Aggregate of Desert Sand. Build. Environ. 2006, 41, 1478–1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hamada, H.M.; Abed, F.; Al-Sadoon, Z.A.; Elnassar, Z.; Hassan, A. The Use of Treated Desert Sand in Sustainable Concrete: A Mechanical and Microstructure Study. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 79, 107843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Al-Harthy, A.S.; Halim, M.A.; Taha, R.; Al-Jabri, K.S. The Properties of Concrete Made with Fine Dune Sand. Constr. Build. Mater. 2007, 21, 1803–1808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lynda Amel, C.; Kadri, E.-H.; Sebaibi, Y.; Soualhi, H. Dune Sand and Pumice Impact on Mechanical and Thermal Lightweight Concrete Properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 133, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bouziani, T.; Bederina, M.; Hadjoudja, M. Effect of Dune Sand on the Properties of Flowing Sand-Concrete (FSC). Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2012, 6, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Luo, F.J.; He, L.; Pan, Z.; Duan, W.H.; Zhao, X.L.; Collins, F. Effect of Very Fine Particles on Workability and Strength of Concrete Made with Dune Sand. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 47, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kapoor, K.; Singh, S.P.; Singh, B. Durability of Self-Compacting Concrete Made with Recycled Concrete Aggregates and Mineral Admixtures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 128, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zaharieva, R.; Buyle-Bodin, F.; Skoczylas, F.; Wirquin, E. Assessment of the Surface Permeation Properties of Recycled Aggregate Concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2003, 25, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Debieb, F.; Kenai, S. The Use of Coarse and Fine Crushed Bricks as Aggregate in Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 886–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Olorunsogo, F.T.; Padayachee, N. Performance of Recycled Aggregate Concrete Monitored by Durability Indexes. Cem. Concr. Res. 2002, 32, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tu, T.-Y.; Chen, Y.-Y.; Hwang, C.-L. Properties of HPC with Recycled Aggregates. Cem. Concr. Res. 2006, 36, 943–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Somna, R.; Jaturapitakkul, C.; Amde, A.M. Effect of Ground Fly Ash and Ground Bagasse Ash on the Durability of Recycled Aggregate Concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2012, 34, 848–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hwang, J.P.; Shim, H.B.; Lim, S.; Ann, K.Y. Enhancing the Durability Properties of Concrete Containing Recycled Aggregate by the Use of Pozzolanic Materials. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2013, 17, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gokce, A.; Nagataki, S.; Saeki, T.; Hisada, M. Freezing and Thawing Resistance of Air-Entrained Concrete Incorporating Recycled Coarse Aggregate: The Role of Air Content in Demolished Concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 799–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Debieb, F.; Courard, L.; Kenai, S.; Degeimbre, R. Mechanical and Durability Properties of Concrete Using Contaminated Recycled Aggregates. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2010, 32, 421–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, Y.; Zhang, H.; Chen, S.; Wang, H.; Liu, G. Multi-Scale Study on the Durability Degradation Mechanism of Aeolian Sand Concrete under Freeze–Thaw Conditions. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 340, 127433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. de Juan, M.S.; Gutiérrez, P.A. Study on the Influence of Attached Mortar Content on the Properties of Recycled Concrete Aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 872–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Akbarnezhad, A.; Ong, K.C.G.; Tam, C.T.; Zhang, M.H. Effects of the Parent Concrete Properties and Crushing Procedure on the Properties of Coarse Recycled Concrete Aggregates. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2013, 25, 1795–1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Al-Bayati, H.K.A.; Das, P.K.; Tighe, S.L.; Baaj, H. Evaluation of Various Treatment Methods for Enhancing the Physical and Morphological Properties of Coarse Recycled Concrete Aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 112, 284–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Han, S.; Zhong, J.; Yu, Q.; Yan, L.; Ou, J. Sulfate Resistance of Eco-Friendly and Sulfate-Resistant Concrete Using Seawater Sea-Sand and High-Ferrite Portland Cement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 305, 124753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Santhanam, M.; Cohen, M.D.; Olek, J. Mechanism of Sulfate Attack: A Fresh Look: Part 2. Proposed Mechanisms. Cem. Concr. Res. 2003, 33, 341–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Burgos, D.M.; Guzmán, Á.; Delvasto, S. Assessment of the Performance of SCC Incorporating Volcanic Materials in a Sodium Sulfate Environment. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 195, 52–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liu, J.; Li, A.; Yang, Y.; Wang, X.; Yang, F. Dry–Wet Cyclic Sulfate Attack Mechanism of High-Volume Fly Ash Self-Compacting Concrete. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wang, Y.; Xie, M.; Zhang, J. Mechanical Properties and Damage Model of Modified Recycled Concrete under Freeze-Thaw Cycles. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 78, 107680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yu, X.; Chen, D.; Feng, J.; Zhang, Y.; Liao, Y. Behavior of Mortar Exposed to Different Exposure Conditions of Sulfate Attack. Ocean Eng. 2018, 157, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Xie, F.; Li, J.; Zhao, G.; Wang, C.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, P. Experimental Investigations on the Durability and Degradation Mechanism of Cast-in-Situ Recycled Aggregate Concrete under Chemical Sulfate Attack. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 297, 123771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Xu, Y. The Influence of Sulphates on Chloride Binding and Pore Solution Chemistry. Cem. Concr. Res. 1997, 27, 1841–1850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Geng, J.; Easterbrook, D.; Li, L.; Mo, L. The Stability of Bound Chlorides in Cement Paste with Sulfate Attack. Cem. Concr. Res. 2015, 68, 211–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Qi, B.; Gao, J.; Chen, F.; Shen, D. Evaluation of the Damage Process of Recycled Aggregate Concrete under Sulfate Attack and Wetting-Drying Cycles. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 138, 254–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Li, Y.; Li, J. Capillary Tension Theory for Prediction of Early Autogenous Shrinkage of Self-Consolidating Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 53, 511–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chen, B.; Peng, L.; Zhong, H.; Zhao, Y.; Meng, T.; Zhang, B. Improving the Mechanical Properties of Mussel Shell Aggregate Concrete by Aggregate Modification and Mixture Design. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2023, 18, e02017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Particle size distributions of the sand.
Figure 1. Particle size distributions of the sand.
Materials 16 07279 g001
Figure 2. Productive process and particle size distributions of the coarse aggregate.
Figure 2. Productive process and particle size distributions of the coarse aggregate.
Materials 16 07279 g002
Figure 3. Workability tests of fresh ARSCC. (a) Slump flow. (b) J-ring. (c) Segregation resistance.
Figure 3. Workability tests of fresh ARSCC. (a) Slump flow. (b) J-ring. (c) Segregation resistance.
Materials 16 07279 g003
Figure 4. Electric flux test.
Figure 4. Electric flux test.
Materials 16 07279 g004
Figure 5. HC-LSB concrete sulfate dry–wet cycle testing machine.
Figure 5. HC-LSB concrete sulfate dry–wet cycle testing machine.
Materials 16 07279 g005
Figure 6. Compressive strength of ARSCC with different replacement ratios.
Figure 6. Compressive strength of ARSCC with different replacement ratios.
Materials 16 07279 g006
Figure 7. The relationship of impermeability grade and electric flux.
Figure 7. The relationship of impermeability grade and electric flux.
Materials 16 07279 g007
Figure 8. Visual inspection of ARSCC after sulfate attack: (a) 60 cycles, (b) 120 cycles.
Figure 8. Visual inspection of ARSCC after sulfate attack: (a) 60 cycles, (b) 120 cycles.
Materials 16 07279 g008
Figure 9. Mass loss rate of ARSCC with different replacement ratios.
Figure 9. Mass loss rate of ARSCC with different replacement ratios.
Materials 16 07279 g009
Figure 10. Relative dynamic elastic modulus of ARSCC with different replacement ratios.
Figure 10. Relative dynamic elastic modulus of ARSCC with different replacement ratios.
Materials 16 07279 g010
Figure 11. Corrosion resistance factor of ARSCC with different replacement ratios.
Figure 11. Corrosion resistance factor of ARSCC with different replacement ratios.
Materials 16 07279 g011
Figure 12. The relationship between impermeability and durability.
Figure 12. The relationship between impermeability and durability.
Materials 16 07279 g012
Figure 13. XRD of ARSCC with different replacement ratios after 120 cycles.
Figure 13. XRD of ARSCC with different replacement ratios after 120 cycles.
Materials 16 07279 g013
Figure 14. Porosity of ARSCC with different replacement ratios before and after sulfate attack.
Figure 14. Porosity of ARSCC with different replacement ratios before and after sulfate attack.
Materials 16 07279 g014
Figure 15. MIP of ARSCC with different replacement ratios before and after sulfate attack.
Figure 15. MIP of ARSCC with different replacement ratios before and after sulfate attack.
Materials 16 07279 g015
Table 1. Basic properties of cement.
Table 1. Basic properties of cement.
Cement StabilityIgnition Loss Rate (%)Specific Surface Area (m2/kg)Setting Time (min)Compressive Strength (MPa)
InitialFinal3 Days28 Days
Qualified2.935416522027.846.5
Table 2. Fly ash performance parameters.
Table 2. Fly ash performance parameters.
ClassFinenessIgnition Loss Rate (%)Water Demand Ratio (%)Moisture Content (%)
II24.64.9980.4
Table 3. Basic properties of sand.
Table 3. Basic properties of sand.
TypeTechnical Indicators
SourceFineness ModulusSoil Clay Content (%)Apparent Density (kg/m3)
NSUrumqi sand field2.930.82487.5
ASGurbantunggut desert0.720.62542.4
Table 4. Main components of sand.
Table 4. Main components of sand.
TypeChemical Composition of Sand (%)
SiO2Al2O3CaOFe2O3Na2OK2OMgOOthers
NS90.764.590.110.730.392.160.181.08
AS75.0911.163.663.132.682.340.960.98
Table 5. Properties of coarse aggregate.
Table 5. Properties of coarse aggregate.
TypeWater Absorption (%)Moisture Content (%)Packing Density (kg/m3)Apparent Density (kg/m3)Elongated Particle (%)Crush Index (%)Robustness (%)
NCA2.360.401353.002687.221.588.761.2
RCA3.600.811204.272485.253.1510.446.8
Table 6. Mix design (kg/m3).
Table 6. Mix design (kg/m3).
Mix CodeW/BWaterAdded WaterNCARCANSASFly AshCementWater Reduce (g)
A0-R00.33169.9508480706.860259.37257.713332.4
A20-R250.33169.9513.89636196.06565.49141.37259.37257.713332.4
A20-R500.33169.9527.77424392.13565.49141.37259.37257.713332.4
A20-R750.33169.9535.29212588.19565.49141.37259.37257.713332.4
A40-R250.33169.9513.89636199.94424.12282.74259.37257.713332.4
A40-R500.33169.9527.77424399.89424.12282.74259.37257.713332.4
A40-R750.33169.9535.29212588.19424.12282.74259.37257.713332.4
A60-R250.33169.9513.89636199.94282.74424.12259.37257.713332.4
A60-R500.33169.9527.77424399.89282.74424.12259.37257.713332.4
A60-R750.33169.9535.29212588.19282.74424.12259.37257.713332.4
Table 7. Test results of workability.
Table 7. Test results of workability.
MixesSlump Flow (mm)J-Ring (mm)Segregation Resistance (%)
A0-R06561212
A20-R256401110
A20-R506251010
A20-R7558976
A40-R2563368
A40-R5060747
A40-R7557235
A60-R2558444
A60-R5056725
A60-R7555413
Table 8. Test results of impermeability grade and electric flux.
Table 8. Test results of impermeability grade and electric flux.
MixMSP (MPa)Impermeability GradeElectric Flux (C)
A0-R01.918598.62
A20-R252.019588.79
A20-R501.918599.65
A20-R751.716643.45
A40-R251.817616.14
A40-R501.817633.59
A40-R751.615684.33
A60-R251.716571.32
A60-R501.514703.62
A60-R751.413753.54
Note: MSP is maximum seepage pressure.
Table 9. The results of compressive strength (MPa) after sulfate attack.
Table 9. The results of compressive strength (MPa) after sulfate attack.
MixesNumber of Dry–Wet Cycles
0306090120
A0-R032.934.433.532.529.5
A20-R2532.233.933.231.229.1
A20-R5033.335.234.532.530.3
A20-R7530.231.230.128.626.2
A40-R2531.632.931.930.327.7
A40-R5032.133.632.930.628.4
A40-R7529.730.529.328.025.0
A60-R2529.129.728.827.324.6
A60-R5029.830.829.427.625.0
A60-R7528.128.627.425.723.1
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

Zheng, S.; Liu, Q.; Han, F.; Liu, S.; Zhang, G.; Zhu, J. Impermeability and Durability of Self-Compacting Concrete Prepared with Aeolian Sand and Recycled Coarse Aggregate. Materials 2023, 16, 7279. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16237279

AMA Style

Zheng S, Liu Q, Han F, Liu S, Zhang G, Zhu J. Impermeability and Durability of Self-Compacting Concrete Prepared with Aeolian Sand and Recycled Coarse Aggregate. Materials. 2023; 16(23):7279. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16237279

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zheng, Shiqi, Qing Liu, Fengxia Han, Shan Liu, Guoxing Zhang, and Jiayan Zhu. 2023. "Impermeability and Durability of Self-Compacting Concrete Prepared with Aeolian Sand and Recycled Coarse Aggregate" Materials 16, no. 23: 7279. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16237279

APA Style

Zheng, S., Liu, Q., Han, F., Liu, S., Zhang, G., & Zhu, J. (2023). Impermeability and Durability of Self-Compacting Concrete Prepared with Aeolian Sand and Recycled Coarse Aggregate. Materials, 16(23), 7279. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16237279

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