Research Article  Open Access
Xiaolin Chang, Xinping Yang, Wei Zhou, Guoshuai Xie, Shuhua Liu, "Influence of Glass Powder on Hydration Kinetics of Composite Cementitious Materials", Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 2015, Article ID 713415, 7 pages, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/713415
Influence of Glass Powder on Hydration Kinetics of Composite Cementitious Materials
Abstract
The influence of glass powder (GP) on hydration kinetics of composite cementitious materials has been investigated by isothermal calorimetry test and hydration kinetics methods in this paper. The hydration heat emission rate and hydration heat decrease gradually while the induction and acceleration period increase with the increase of GP content. According to KrstulovicDabic model, the hydration process of composite cementitious materials containing GP is controlled by a variety of complicated reaction mechanisms, which can be divided into three periods: nucleation and crystal growth (NG), phase boundary reaction (I), and diffusion (D). The NG and I process are shortened after incorporating GP.
1. Introduction
Nowadays, large amount of industrial and household waste glass has caused some serious environmental pollution and resource waste, which widely attracts the focus of researchers. United Nations statistics show that 7% of the world’s solid waste is waste glass. Chinese annual output is about 1040 million tons, accounting for almost 5% of total solid waste. But not all waste glass can be recycled to produce new glass because of impurities, highcost, and various colours [1, 2].
Reuse of waste glass in building materials, especially in concrete, is among the most feasible applications for the volume of material involved, the capacity for use of the material in bulk, and the likely ability of construction applications to afford allowances for slight variation in composition or form [3–9]. Many efforts have been made to use waste glass in cement industry as a partial replacement for the coarse or fine aggregates since 1960s [3–6]. In recent years, many works have been conducted for the use of waste glass powder (GP) as a cement replacement. Being amorphous and containing large quantities of silicon and calcium, sodalime glass, accounting for 80% of the waste glass, is pozzolanic or even cementitious in theory when it is finely ground enough [7–9]. The main research focus is mainly about the effect of glass powder’s fineness on the pozzolanic activity and alkalisilica reaction (ASR). The finer the glass powder, the higher the pozzolanic activity. What is more, when the GP particles are smaller than 300 μm, it can effectively mitigate the adverse effects caused by ASR and even be used as ASR inhibitor in glass aggregate mortars. Recently, some attempts have been made to use waste glass as raw siliceous materials for the production of Portland cement [1, 9]. But the effect mechanism of GP on the hydration process of composite cementitious materials is still not clear. Hydration reaction of cementbased materials is divided into three basic processes according to KrstulovicDabic model, namely, nucleation and crystal growth (NG), phase boundary reaction (I), and diffusion (D). However, how do the factors which control the reaction rate and mechanism of corresponding stage change after incorporating GP is still unknown. It is indispensable to fully recognize the acting mechanisms of GP in composite cementitious materials and the influencing factors to guarantee its optimum utilization.
The green beer bottle is used to prepare glass powder in this work, because it has been widely used over the world, especially in China. This paper focuses on the influence of GP on hydration kinetics of composite cementitious materials. Hydration heat evolution rate and hydration heat of the cement paste containing different GP content are investigated and analysed with the aid of isothermal calorimeter and hydration kinetics methods. This study will contribute to promoting the understanding of hydration mechanism of the composite cementitious materials containing GP.
2. Experimental
Ordinary Portland cement P.O 42.5 and GP are used in this test. Among them, GP is made of waste glass bottles, which are crushed and ground for 1 hour in a ball mill. GP particles show irregular singular, blocky, and classic shapes with smooth surface morphology, as shown in Figure 1. And, from Figure 1, expect for some large apparent size, most of GP particle sizes are under 5 μm. The specific surface area of GP is 515 m^{2}/kg, which is a little lower than that of cement (385 m^{2}/kg). The chemical compositions of the raw materials are shown in Table 1. GP consists of 69.17% SiO_{2}, 12.13% Na_{2}O, and 10.52% CaO and is a typical sodalime glass (approximately 71% SiO_{2}, 13–15% Na_{2}O, and 10% CaO).

Mix proportions of paste are shown in Table 2. GP20 and GP40 are short for the composite cementitious materials containing 20% and 40% GP, respectively. The hydration heat evolution rate and total hydration heat emission of the samples are measured by an isothermal calorimeter (TAM Air) at 25°C within 72 hours. The temperature fluctuation is less than ±0.02°C, and the precision can reach ±20 mμW. The water to binder ratio (W/B) is 0.4. The hydration heat evolution rate and total hydration heat of samples can be continuously monitored as a function of time.

3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Characteristics of Hydration Heat Evolution
The hydration heat emission rate and the total hydration heat curves of the three samples under the constant temperature of 25°C within 72 hours are shown in Figure 2. The end time of induction period and the acceleration period of the three samples are shown in Figure 3. The rate of the second heat emission peak and the total heat emission at different hydration ages determined from heat evolution curves are shown in Table 3.

(a)
(b)
As shown in Figure 2(a), the hydration processes of the three samples are more or less analogous. During the initial several minutes after mixing the binder with water, an instantaneous exothermic peak occurs sharply, which can be attributed to the rapid dissolving of cement clinker and quick formation of ettringite and syngenite [10–12]. After that, the heat emission rate decreases dramatically accompanied with a slow growth of hydration heat in Figure 2(b), which indicates that the system goes into an induction period. Figure 3 displays that the induction period of sample C (pure cement) lasts for about 2.57 hours while that of samples GP20 and GP40 lasts for about 3.38 hours and 3.86 hours, respectively. With the increase of GP content, cement clinker is diluted which brings about the increase of the relative water content and the decrease of the relative Ca^{2+} concentration in the cementitious system [13–16]. Afterwards, that delays the time when Ca^{2+} reaches supersaturation, leading to the ending time of the induction period being prolonged.
After the induction period, the acceleration period comes with strong hydration reaction of C_{3}S and fast formation of CSH gel and Ca(OH)_{2} [17]. As a whole, incorporating GP, to some extent, retards the early hydration process of composite cementitious materials. The higher content of GP, the lower peak value and longer reaching time to the second exothermic peak, as is shown in Figure 2(a) and Table 4. The maximum value of the second exothermic peak of samples decreases by 15%, from 8.262 J/g·h to 6.973 J/g·h, accompanied with its occurring time increasing from 9.45 hours to 12.88 hours after incorporating 20% GP. When the GP content increases from 20% to 40%, the time reaching the second exothermic peak is prolonged from 12.88 hours to 13.19 hours and the maximum value of the second exothermic peak is decreased by 17%, from 6.973 J/g·h to 5.787 J/g·h. The low hydration activity of GP may be the main affecting factor.

Figure 2(b) shows the total hydration heat of samples, which decreases disproportionally with the increase of GP content. It can be seen from Table 4 that the 12 hours’ heat emission decreases by 10.52% from 61.67 J/g to 55.18 J/g after incorporating 20% GP and decreases by 1.01% from 55.18 J/g to 54.62 J/g when the GP content increases from 20% to 40%. The 72 hours’ heat emission decreases by 11.79% from 164.06 J/g (sample C) to 144.71 J/g (sample GP20) and by 26.12% from 144.71 J/g (sample GP20) to 117.78 J/g (sample GP40).
When all the experiment results are normalized to the amount of cement present, both hydration heat and hydration heat emission rate increase with the increase of GP content, which indicates that GP contributes to promoting the hydration of cement. On one hand, the replacement of cement by GP increases the effective water to cement ratio, and there is more space for the hydration products of cement. On the other hand, GP with enough fineness can also act as nucleation site for the cement hydration products to deposit and grow up during the process of nucleation and crystal growth [18–21].
3.2. Hydration Process Simulation
3.2.1. Exothermic Process Division
Take the sample containing 40% GP (GP40), for example, as shown in Figure 4. The hydration progress of composite cementitious materials can be generally divided into five processes [22–25]: 0AB, BC, CD, DE, and EF. In which, 0AB is the acute instant reaction period which is considered as chemical reaction only and not being taken into consideration in the kinetics model. And BC is the induction period during which the hydration rate is nearly back to zero. After that, at the end of CD acceleration period, the secondary exothermic peak occurs. Deceleration phase DE and recession period EF come after the acceleration period, during which the hydration reaction decreases rapidly and then trends to be stationary.
During the first process of hydration, the reaction is so transient with little hydration heat. Meanwhile, due to the low hydration rate during the induction period, the continuous heat quality of induction period can also be ignored. In current research, the hydration process is mainly from the end of induction period to the deceleration phase and recession period.
3.2.2. Hydration Kinetics Model
As a branch of physical chemistry, chemical kinetics focuses on the study of chemical reaction rate and mechanism. Its research object is the nonequilibrium dynamic system changing with time. So the time is an extremely important parameter. Phenomenological dynamics method and molecular reaction dynamics method are the two main research methods [15, 16]. For heterogeneous reaction system, dynamic formula at a constant temperature can be expressed as follows:where is reaction degree of reactants, is Avogadro constant, is preexponential factor, is apparent activation energy, is the thermodynamic temperature, is time, and is function of conversion degree.
According to KrstulovicDabic model [14, 16], hydration reaction of cementbased materials can be divided into three processes, namely, nucleation and crystal growth (NG), phase boundary reaction (I), and diffusion (D). These three control processes may occur simultaneously or in pairs, or even alone, but the hydration rate of the overall development process depends on the one which reacts slowest; that is, the control process of the slowest reaction controls the reaction rate and mechanism of corresponding stage [14–17]. Formula (2)–(4) would be the reflection of the three hydration processes which are controlled by NG, I, and D, respectively: where , , and are reaction rate constant and is reaction order.
As is a constant, to make simplification, , , and .
Reaction degree of reactants and maximum hydration heat can be expressed [11, 14] and calculated from the following formula: where is accumulated hydration heat at the time of , is maximum hydration heat, is the end time of induction period, and is the time when the hydration heat value is half of .
This model is a considerable hydration dynamic model which made researchers find it easy to understand the controlling factors at each stage for composite cementitious materials. At the same time, there are also some limits to this model. Take the boundaries between the three processes as an example; it is still difficult to be divided accurately and the correlation between the experimental data and models at the boundaries is also poor. Despite this, attempts have been made to use KrstulovicDabic model to simulate the hydration process of composite cementitious materials containing GP in this paper.
3.2.3. Hydration Process Simulation of Composite Cementitious Materials with and without GP
can be deduced and calculated according to Knudsen extrapolation equation [14], formula (7), as is shown in Figure 5. Kinetics parameters and under NG process would be deduced and calculated by formula (2) when transforming to linear regression of , as is shown in Figure 6. under process I and under process D would be deduced and calculated using the same method. All the parameters of the three samples are shown in Table 4. Theoretical and practical hydration curves of the three samples are shown in Figures 7–9.
As shown in Figures 7–9, theoretical curves , , and simulated by KrstulovicDabic model are compared with practical curve deduced from experimental data. The intersection point is the turning points from nucleation and crystal growth (NG) process to phase boundary reaction (I) process and is the turning points from phase boundary reaction (I) to diffusion (D) process. Different hydration mechanisms are revealed in different period. Hydration mechanisms of samples can be inferred and determined by comparing and .
Figure 7 shows the simulated and practical hydration exothermic rate curves of cement sample. There is one part of curves for , , and , matching with experimental hydration curve , respectively. The hydration degree of the time point corresponding to the end of induction period for cement sample is 0.04. During 0.04 and , curve of is identical with the practical . Theoretical curve of is consistent with between and . is consistent with curve between and 1. Results validate that cement hydration has a complicated process with multiple reaction mechanisms. The controlling factor is different during different hydration process.
During the early hydration period, reactants, especially for water, are rich while the hydration products are poor, so that hydration in early stage is mainly controlled by the crystallization nucleation and crystal growth, during which chemical reaction of hydration is strong [11]. With the development of hydration, the hydration products become more and more accompanied with large amount of water consumed, which causes the ion migration to be relatively difficult [11]. Therefore, the hydration mechanism changes to phase boundary reaction or diffusion, during which physical diffusion is strong and hydration is relatively slow with a stable development.
Figures 8 and 9 display the simulated and practical hydration exothermic rate curves of GP20 and GP40. In comparison with pure cement, the fitting results of samples containing GP have a slight deviation but they still show high goodness of fit with the practical hydration heat evolution rate curve. So the KrstulovicDabic model can also be used to simulate the hydration of composite cementitious materials containing GP, which is also capable of revealing the development trends and controlling factors of hydration process to some degree.
Similar to pure cement, the hydration process of composite cementitious materials that mixed 20% and 40% GP is also controlled by a variety of complex reaction mechanisms belonging to the process of NGID. But it is noted that both of the hydration durations for NG process and I process are shorter than those of pure cement. The value of decreases from 0.127 to 0.118 while value of () is decreasing from 0.204 to 0.077 after incorporating 20% GP. When the GP content increases from 20% to 40%, the value of continues to decrease from 0.118 to 0.105 along with value of () decreasing from 0.077 to 0.073. This may be associated with the fineness and the low water absorption of GP. Replacement of cement by GP increases the effective water to cement ratio and provides more space for the hydration products of cement in the early hydration process. Meanwhile, GP with enough fineness can also act as nucleation site for the cement hydration products to deposit and grow up during the process of nucleation and crystal growth [6, 26, 27]. Both of those may contribute to strengthening the controlling effects of NG and I by promoting the hydration of cement, leading to a sharper exothermic rate peak and shorter hydration duration.
4. Conclusions
(1) The hydration heat emission rate and hydration heat decrease gradually while the induction and acceleration period increase with the increase of GP content.
(2) Similar to cement, the KrstulovicDabic model can also be used to simulate the hydration process of composite cementitious materials containing GP. The hydration process of composite cementitious materials containing GP is controlled by a variety of complicated reaction mechanisms, which can be divided into three periods: nucleation and crystal growth (NG), phase boundary reaction (I), and diffusion (D).
(3) The NG and I process of the composite cementitious materials are shortened after incorporating GP.
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
Acknowledgments
This project is funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51208391) and National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program, 2013CB035901).
References
 C. J. Shi and K. R. Zheng, “A review on the use of waste glasses in the production of cement and concrete,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 234–247, 2007. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. H. Song, “Waste glass treatment and resourcelike utilization,” Heilongjiang Environmental Journal, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 68–70, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
 C. D. Johnston, “Waste glass as coarse aggregate for concrete,” Journal of Testing and Evaluation, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 344–350, 1974. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. Karamberi and A. Moutsatsou, “Participation of coloured glass cullet in cementitious materials,” Cement and Concrete Composites, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 319–327, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 I. B. Topçu and M. Canbaz, “Properties of concrete containing waste glass,” Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 267–274, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. J. Terro, “Properties of concrete made with recycled crushed glass at elevated temperatures,” Building and Environment, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 633–639, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. H. Liu, G. S. Xie, and M. J. Rao, “Effect of waste glass powder on properties and microstructure of ultrahigh performance cement based materials,” Material Research Innovations, vol. 17, supplement 1, pp. 210–214, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
 S. H. Liu, G. S. Xie, and S. Wang, “Effect of curing temperature on hydration properties of waste glass powder in cementbased materials,” Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, vol. 119, no. 1, pp. 47–55, 2015. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 C. Shi, Y. Z. Wu, C. Riefler, and H. Wang, “Characteristics and pozzolanic reactivity of glass powders,” Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 987–993, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. W. Bullard, H. M. Jennings, R. A. Livingston et al., “Mechanisms of cement hydration,” Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 1208–1223, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. H. Liu, L. Wang, Y. X. Gao, B. Yu, and W. Tang, “Influence of fineness on hydration kinetics of supersulfated cement,” Thermochimica Acta, vol. 605, no. 1, pp. 37–42, 2015. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. Lothenbach, K. Scrivener, and R. D. Hooton, “Supplementary cementitious materials,” Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 1244–1256, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 X.Y. Wang, H.S. Lee, K.B. Park, J.J. Kim, and J. S. Golden, “A multiphase kinetic model to simulate hydration of slag–cement blends,” Cement and Concrete Composites, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 468–477, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 P. Y. Yan and F. Zheng, “Kinetics model for the hydration mechanism of cementitious materials,” Kuei Suan Jen Hsueh Pao/Journal of the Chinese Ceramic Society, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 555–559, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
 A. FernandezJimenez, F. Puertas, and A. Arteaga, “Determination of kinetic equations of alkaline activation of blast furnace slag by means of calorimetric data,” Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 945–955, 1998. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. Krstulović and P. Dabić, “A conceptual model of the cement hydration process,” Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 693–698, 2000. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 F. Lin and C. Meyer, “Hydration kinetics modeling of Portland cement considering the effects of curing temperature and applied pressure,” Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 255–265, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 T. D. Dyer and R. K. Dhir, “Chemical reactions of glass cullet used as cement component,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 414–417, 2001. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. A. Jain and N. Neithalath, “Chloride transport in fly ash and glass powder modified concretes—influence of test methods on microstructure,” Cement and Concrete Composites, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 148–156, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. R. Patagundi and R. T. Jadhav, “Effect of freezing and thawing on the properties of SFRC containing waste glass powder as pozzolana,” International Archive of Applied Sciences and Technology, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 33–39, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
 B. R. Patagundi and K. B. Prakash, “Effect of temperature on the properties of concrete containing glass powder as pozzolana,” International Archive of Applied Sciences and Technology, vol. 1, no. 8, pp. 1–4, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
 N. Schwarz and N. Neithalath, “Influence of a fine glass powder on cement hydration: comparison to fly ash and modeling the degree of hydration,” Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 429–436, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 N. Schwarz, H. Cam, and N. Neithalath, “Influence of a fine glass powder on the durability characteristics of concrete and its comparison to fly ash,” Cement and Concrete Composites, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 486–496, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. de Castro and J. de Brito, “Evaluation of the durability of concrete made with crushed glass aggregates,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 7–14, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. M. Khatib, E. M. Negim, H. S. Sohl, and N. Chileshe, “Glass powder utilization in concrete production,” European Journal of Applied Sciences, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 98–100, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
 C. J. Shi, Y. Z. Wu, C. Riefler, and H. Wang, “Characteristics and pozzolanic reactivity of glass powders,” Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 987–993, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. Idir, M. Cyr, and A. TagnitHamou, “Use of fine glass as ASR inhibitor in glass aggregate mortars,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1309–1312, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Xiaolin Chang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.