Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T23:34:04.496Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Coupling thermodynamics and digital image models to simulate hydration and microstructure development of portland cement pastes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2011

Jeffrey W. Bullard*
Affiliation:
Materials and Construction Research Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland
Barbara Lothenbach
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Concrete and Construction Chemistry, Empa, CH-8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
Paul E. Stutzman
Affiliation:
Materials and Construction Research Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland
Kenneth A. Snyder
Affiliation:
Materials and Construction Research Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland
*
a)Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: bullard@nist.gov

Abstract

Equilibrium thermodynamic calculations, coupled to a kinetic model for the dissolution rates of clinker phases, have been used in recent years to predict time-dependent phase assemblages in hydrating cement pastes. We couple this approach to a 3D microstructure model to simulate microstructure development during the hydration of ordinary portland cement pastes. The combined simulation tool uses a collection of growth/dissolution rules to approximate a range of growth modes at material interfaces, including growth by weighted mean curvature and growth by random aggregation. The growth rules are formulated for each type of material interface to capture the kinds of cement paste microstructure changes that are typically observed. We make quantitative comparisons between simulated and observed microstructures for two ordinary portland cements, including bulk phase analyses and two-point correlation functions for various phases. The method is also shown to provide accurate predictions of the heats of hydration and 28 day mortar cube compressive strengths. The method is an attractive alternative to the cement hydration and microstructure model CEMHYD3D because it has a better thermodynamic and kinetic basis and because it is transferable to other cementitious material systems.

Information

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2011
Figure 0

FIG. 1. Particle size distributions, plotted as probability density functions, measured for cements CCRL 151 and CCRL 168 using laser diffraction from a dilute suspension of particles in isopropyl alcohol.

Figure 1

TABLE I. Major oxide components for CCRL 151 and CCRL 168 as measured by approximately 250 laboratories, reported as mass%. Values in parentheses represent 1 standard deviation in the reported measurements.

Figure 2

TABLE II. Phase composition, in mass% of major phases in CCRL 151 and CCRL 168, based on Rietveld refinement of x-ray powder diffraction patterns using 11% corundum by mass as an internal standard. Numbers in parentheses indicate within-laboratory 95% confidence radius.29

Figure 3

FIG. 2. Final processed images of CCRL 151 (left) and CCRL 168 (right) with segmented phases.

Figure 4

Table III. Interphase affinities, random growth probabilities, and nucleation probabilities assumed in the simulations. In the Affinities column, a number in parentheses next to a phase is the affinity for that phase. Only nonzero values are listed.a

Figure 5

FIG. 3. Mass fractions of the four major clinker phases, C–S–H gel, CH, ettringite, and monosulfate as a function of time in CCRL 151 paste (w/c = 0.45) hydrated at 23 °C under sealed conditions. Continuous and dashed curves are model predictions. Open symbols are experimental measurements made by QXRD. QXRD measurements of C–S–H gel are not available. Uncertainties in the experimental data, estimated as one standard deviation of 10 analyses, are: CH = 0.02 to 0.03, AFt = 0.02 to 0.06, C3S = 0.01 to 0.03, C2S = 0.006 to 0.02, C3A = 0.01, C4AF = 0.015.

Figure 6

FIG. 4. Mass fractions of the four major clinker phases, C–S–H gel, CH, ettringite, and monosulfate as a function of time in CCRL 168 paste (w/c = 0.45) hydrated at 23 °C under sealed conditions. Continuous and dashed curves are model predictions. Open symbols are experimental measurements made by QXRD, and closed symbols are estimates from quantitative SEM at 7 days hydration. QXRD measurements of C–S–H are not available. The solid and dashed lines for ettringite and monosulfate correspond to calculations with calcite excluded and included in the cement, respectively. Uncertainties in the QXRD data are the same as in Fig. 3, and uncertainties in microscopy estimates, expressed as ±1 standard deviation in two replicates, are smaller than the symbol except as shown for ettringite.

Figure 7

FIG. 5. Predicted time dependence of the heat release in CCRL 151 and CCRL 168 pastes (w/c = 0.40) cured under sealed conditions at 23 °C. Continuous curves are model predictions. Open circles are the mean values measured at 168 h (7 days) and 672 h (28 days), and the error bars represent ±1 standard deviation of approximately 20 measurements each.20,21

Figure 8

FIG. 6. Predicted time dependence of the compressive strength in CCRL 151 and CCRL 168 mortars (w/c = 0.485) cured under sealed conditions at 23 °C. Continuous curves are model predictions using the gel-space ratio equation given in each plot. Open circles are the mean values measured at 72 h (3 days), 168 h (7 days) and 672 h (28 days), and the error bars represent ±1 standard deviation of approximately 200 measurements each.20,21

Figure 9

FIG. 7. SEM image of a polished section of CCRL 168 paste hydrated for 7 days at 23 °C under sealed conditions. The images have been segmented into the following phase collections, in order of decreasing brightness in the images: clinker silicates, clinker interstitial phases, CH, C–S–H gel, monosulfate, ettringite, capillary pores.

Figure 10

FIG. 8. Representative portion of the observed hydrated microstructure from Fig. 7 (left) compared to the simulated hydrated microstructure (right).

Figure 11

FIG. 9. Two-point correlation functions as a function of distance, r, normalized by their values at r = 0, for the simulated hydration of CCRL 168 with w/c = 0.45, including capillary porosity, unhydrated cement grains, CH, and combined ettringite (AFt) and monosulfate (AFm) phases. Error bars for the simulations represent ±1 standard deviation at each point for five different 2D slices of the microstructure. Where error bars are not visible, they are smaller than the symbol.