Advertisement

Determination of Self-Healing Performance of Cementitious Composites Under Elevated CO2 Concentration by Resonant Frequency and Crack Opening Measurements

  • Süleyman Bahadır Keskin
  • Kasap Keskin Özlem
  • Gürkan Yıldırım
  • Mustafa Şahmaran
  • Özgür Anıl
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 7)

Abstract

Global warming is a phenomenon that incontrovertibly affects daily lives of human beings in almost all aspects. Definitely, construction industry, especially concrete as most commonly used construction material, is not exempt from the effects of global warming. Nevertheless, there is a lack of information on how the change in atmospheric conditions influences self-healing behavior of cementitious materials. This research examines the impact of increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere on the self-healing capability of cementitious materials in terms of resonant frequency and crack opening measurements. For this purpose, to clearly disclose the effect of tremendous increase in the environmental CO2 concentration as a result of global warming, Engineered Cementitious Composites (ECC) which possess advanced intrinsic self-healing capability were employed. For this purpose, sound and pre-cracked ECC specimens containing fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag were tested by resonant frequency after 28 days of initial curing up to 28 + 90 days with 15 days intervals and crack openings were observed for each testing age. Moreover, in order to accelerate the capture of CO2 from the environment, a third ECC mixture was prepared by adding Ca(OH)2 to the ECC mixture incorporating fly ash. The results showed that CO2 present in the environment can improve the self-healing behavior of ECC mixtures, which is a promising finding in terms of environmental concerns. Possibility of capturing and decreasing the CO2 from the atmosphere by self-healing mechanism will make the ECC a more environmentally friendly construction material additional to its superior technical properties.

Keywords

High CO2 environment Cementitious composites Self-healing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial assistance of the Scientific and Technical Research Council (TUBITAK) of Turkey provided under Project: MAG-112M876.

References

  1. 1.
    Şahmaran M, Li VC (2010) Engineered cementitious composites: can composites be accepted as crack-free concrete? Transp Res Rec 164:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li VC (2002) Advances in ECC research. SP 206-23 ACI Special Publication on Concr.: Mater Sci Appl, pp 373–400Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sahmaran M, Lachemi M, Hossain KMA, Ranade R, Li VC (2009) Influence of aggregate type and size on ductility and mechanical properties of engineered cementitious composites. ACI Mater J 106:308–316Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wua M, Johannesson B, Geiker M (2012) A review: self-healing in cementitious materials and engineered cementitious composite as a self-healing material. Constr Build Mater 28:571–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Tittelboom K, Gruyaert E, Rahier H, De Belie N (2012) Influence of mix composition on the extent of autogenous crack healing by continued hydration or calcium carbonate formation. Constr Build Mater 37:349–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sahmaran M, Li VC (2009) Durability properties of micro-cracked ECC containing high volumes fly ash. Cem Concr Res 39:1033–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huaman RNE, Jun TX (2014) Energy related CO2 emissions and the progress on CCS projects: a review. Renew Sustain Eng Rev 31:368–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lal R (2013) Soil carbon sequestration SOLAW. Backgr Thematic Rep. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/solaw/files/thematic_reports/TR_04b_web.pdf
  9. 9.
    Stewart MG, Wangb X, Nguyen MN (2011) Climate change impact and risks of concrete infrastructure deterioration. Eng Struct 33:1326–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Neville AM (2002) Autogenous healing: a concrete miracle. Concr Int 24:76–82Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lepech MD, Li VC (2009) Water permeability of engineered cementitious composites. Cem Concr Compos 31:744–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ozbay E, Şahmaran M, Lachemi M, Yücel HE (2013) Self-healing of microcracks in high volume fly ash incorporated engineered cementitious composites. ACI Mater J 110:33–44Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sahmaran M, Yildirim G, Erdem TK (2013) Self-healing capability of cementitious composites incorporating different supplementary cementitious material. Cem Concr Compos 35:89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhang Z, Qian S, Ma H (2014) Investigating mechanical properties and self-healing behavior of micro-cracked ECC with different volume of fly ash. Constr Build Mater 52:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yildirim G, Sahmaran M, Ahmed HU (2015) Influence of hydrated lime addition on the self-healing capability of high-volume fly ash incorporated cementitious composites. J Mater Civil Eng 27:1–11Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ASTM C 215 (1997) Test method for fundamental transverse, longitudinal, and torsional frequencies of concrete specimens. ASTM Int., West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peter M, Munteen A, Meier S, Bohm M (2008) Competition of several carbonation reactions in concrete: a parametric study. Cem Concr Res 38:1385–1393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Younsi A, Turcry P, Rozière E, Aït-Mokhtar A, Loukili A (2011) Performance-based design and carbonation of concrete with high fly ash content. Cem Concr Compos 33:993–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Papadakis VG, Vayenas CG, Fardis MN (1992) Hydration and carbonation of pozzolanic cements. ACI Mater J 89:119–130Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marie-Victoire E, Cailleux E, Texier A (2006) Carbonation and historical buildings made of concrete. J Phys Achiev IV 136:305–318Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Castellote M, Fernandez L, Andrade C, Alonso C (2009) Chemical changes and phase analysis of OPC pastes carbonated at different CO2 concentrations. Mater Struct 42:515–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dhir R, Limbachiya M, McCarthy M, Chaipanich A (2007) Evaluation of portland limestone cements for use in concrete construction. Mater Struct 40:459–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sahmaran M, Yildirim G, Noori R, Ozbay E, Lachemi M (2015) Repeatability and pervasiveness of self-healing in engineered cementitious composite. ACI Mater J 112:513–522Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Song G, van Zijl GPAG (2004) Tailoring ECC for commercial applications. In: Proceedings of the 6th RILEM symposium on fiber reinforced concrete, BEFIB 2004, RILEM Pro039, RILEM Publications, Bagneux, pp 1391–1400Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barbhuiya SA, Gbagbo JK, Russell MI, Basheer PAM (2009) Properties of fly ash concrete modified with hydrated lime and silica fume. Constr Build Mater 23:3233–3239CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Süleyman Bahadır Keskin
    • 1
  • Kasap Keskin Özlem
    • 1
  • Gürkan Yıldırım
    • 2
  • Mustafa Şahmaran
    • 3
  • Özgür Anıl
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering FacultyMuğla Sıtkı Koçman UniversityMuğlaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering FacultyAdana Science and Technology UniversityAdanaTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering FacultyHacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  4. 4.Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering FacultyGazi UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations