Abstract
This study investigates the influence of curing periods on the mechanical and durability-related properties of limestone powder concrete, focusing on the potential of limestone as a sustainable alternative to traditional materials, primarily cement. The research explores the effects of varying cement replacement percentages (30 55%) and curing durations (1, 3, 7, 14, and 28 days) on concrete properties such as compressive strength, flexural strength, water permeability, and resistance to chloride ingress. The limestone fineness was also tested using two powders from the same chemical composition, but different particles size. Results indicate that longer curing periods generally enhance concrete performance, but not in all cases. The greatest benefits of extending the curing period was observed in the case of water penetration depth, so the average difference between 1 and 28 days curing was about 50%. Flexural strength also saw a substantial increase of up to 24% over the same curing period. However, increasing the curing period from 7 to 28 days resulted in an unexpected average reduction in concrete compressive strength of 13%. Despite previous results, a positive impact of a higher limestone powder content was observed in all cases, except for resistance to chloride penetration. Concretes that contained limestone powder had a significantly lower (as much as 186%) resistance to chloride penetration, compared to the reference (with the highest dispersion of results). The study found no significant influence of limestone particle size on concrete properties.
Funder
Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia
Publisher
Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES)
Reference54 articles.
1. GCCA, "CONCRETE FUTURE: The GCCA 2050 Cement and Concrete Industry Roadmap for Net Zero Concrete," Glob. Cem. Concr. Assoc., p. London, 2021, [Online];
2. ISO/TC 071, "Strategic Business Plan ISO/TC 071 (ISO Technical Committee for concrete, reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete)," 2016, [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org;
3. S. Marinković, V. Radonjanin, M. Malešev, and I. Ignjatović, "Comparative environmental assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete," Waste Manag., vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 2255-2264, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.04.012;
4. S. A. Miller, A. Horvath, and P. J. M. Monteiro, "Readily implementable techniques can cut annual CO2 emissions from the production of concrete by over 20%," Environ. Res. Lett., vol. 11, no. 7, 2016, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074029;
5. CEMBUREAU, "Cementing the European Green Deal - Reaching climate neutrality along the cement and concrete value chain by 2050," Eur. Cem. Assoc. Brussels, pp. 1-38, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://cembureau.eu/media/kuxd32gi/cembureau-2050-roadmap_final-version_web.pdf;