Advertisement

Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 1199–1204 | Cite as

Environmental degradation of macrodefect-free cements

Part I Mechanical properties investigation
  • I. Titchell
Papers

Abstract

The effect of different environments on the flexural strength of a range of macrodefect-free (MDFs) cements was studied. The results showed significant differences in behaviour of the MDFs. These differences were found to be clearly related to the cement system the MDF was made from.

Initial measurements clearly established that high alumina cement (HAC) based MDFs were significantly stronger than ordinary Portland cement (OPC) based ones.

Upon immersion in water the flexural strengths were observed to drop initially. In the OPC MDFs some recovery in strength was subsequently observed. No such behaviour was found in the HAC MDFs. One of the MDFs studied had had the polymer removed prior to testing. This showed no sign of loss of strength on immersion in water but this could be due to the processing rate used to prepare it.

Gamma irradiation was more damaging to HAC MDFs than OPC MDFs. Gas analysis suggested that polymer degradation was occurring and it is proposed that the polymer matrix in HAC MDFs may be responsible to a degree for the high strength of these materials.

Keywords

Polymer Alumina Polymer Matrix Processing Rate Gamma Irradiation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. D. Birchall, A. J. Howard and K. Kendal, Nature 289 (1981) 388–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Idem, Chem. Brit. 18 (1982) P860–863.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Idem, European Patent 0.021.682, 0 038 126.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. Kendal, A. J. Howard and J. D. Birchall, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A310 (1983) 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    N. B. Eden and J. E. Bailey. J. Mater. Sci. 19 (1984) 2677–2690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Pearson, Private Communication (1984).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. M. Cannon and G. W. Groves, J. Mater. Sci. 21 (1966) 4009–4014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. S. Poon, L. E. Wassell and G. W. Groves, J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Sci. Tech. 3 (1987) P993–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. S. Poon and G. W. Groves, J. Mater. Sci. 23 (1988) 657–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. S. Sinclair, ibid. 20 (1985) 2846–2852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. A. Roger, ibid. 20 (1985) 2853–2860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    I. Titchell, AERE Internal Report, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. O. Bolt and J. G. Carron, “Radiation Effects on Organic Materials”, (Academic Press, New York, 1963) 216.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Christensen, Radiolysis of Concrete, SKBF Technical Report, KBS 84-02.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall Ltd. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Titchell
    • 1
  1. 1.Materials Development DivisionHarwell Laboratory, UKAEAOxonUK

Personalised recommendations