Research ArticleSynthesis of Pectiniform Polyurethane-ModifiedPolycarboxylate and Its Preliminary Application inUltrahigh-Performance Concrete

Shuncheng Xiang and Yingli Gao

Key Laboratory of Special Environment Road Engineering of Hunan Province Changsha University of Science amp TechnologyChangsha 410114 Hunan China

Correspondence should be addressed to Yingli Gao yingligao126com

Received 29 April 2020 Revised 4 June 2020 Accepted 21 August 2020 Published 8 September 2020

Academic Editor Xue Luo

Copyright copy 2020 Shuncheng Xiang and Yingli Gao )is is an open access article distributed under the Creative CommonsAttribution License which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in anymedium provided the original work isproperly cited

In this paper modified polyurethane prepolymer was synthesized by the segmental synthesis method using isophorone dii-socyanate (IPDI) hydroxyl-terminated silicone and polyether glycol dimethylolpropionic acid as raw materials After thatpectiniform polycarboxylate of which side chains were in roughly the same polymerization degree and main chains were indifferent lengths was synthesized at normal temperature in the complex initiation system of H2O2 APS sodium bisulfite and Vc)en compared with commercial Sika polycarboxylate their applications in ultrahigh-performance concrete (HUPC) includingflowability strength drying shrinkage and autogenous shrinkage were investigated)e results showed that due to themolecularstructure of polyorganosiloxane the synthesized polycarboxylate could be better dispersed Dosage of silica fume could effectivelyimprove the compressive strength of UHPC while slag had a certain negative impact on its strength Incorporation of slag andsilica fume could effectively reduce the dry shrinkage of UHPC

1 Introduction

In recent years polycarboxylate (PCE) had developedrapidly By changing the chemical structure of main chainbranch chain and carboxylic acid group in polycarboxylatemolecules polycarboxylate became capable of protecting thecollapse controlling condensation and reducing shrinkageStudies on the chemical structure changes of polycarboxylatemainly focus on the charge density differentiation branchchain length main chain length and the functional groupscontained [1] It had been found that these groups wereadsorbed on the surfaces of silicate cement hydrationproducts and cement particles which not only led to theformation of adsorption layer but also destroyed the floc-culation structure between silicate particles [2] After theaddition of polycarboxylate the electrostatic repulsion andspatial steric resistance could greatly change the force be-tween silicate cement particles and the physical-chemical

properties of the solid-liquid interface making the silicatecement particles evenly distributed thus affecting theflowability and other properties of cement [3] Howeverpolycarboxylate was commonly synthesized by the heatingsynthesis method in which synthesis temperature was re-quired to be between 60degC and 90degC or even higher and thecontent of synthesized polycarboxylate was relatively lowresulting in increased synthesis and marketing costs On thisbasis synthesis of polycarboxylate at room temperature hadbecome a trend of development

In the past two decades concrete admixture technologyhad been developed rapidly )e invention of poly-carboxylate made it possible to prepare concrete mixtureswith low water-binder ratio and high flowability Moreoversome functions could be further enhanced by means ofcompounding )erefore the design and selection of anappropriate polycarboxylate could not only effectively re-duce the water demand of UHPC and obtain the required

HindawiAdvances in Civil EngineeringVolume 2020 Article ID 8859093 16 pageshttpsdoiorg10115520208859093

workability but also promote its condensation and hard-ening and strength development of UHPC and at the sametime obtain better other performance [4 5] It had beenproved that adding some active admixtures such as silicafume and ultrafine slag was an effective way to prepare high-performance concrete Adding any one admixture couldimprove the performance of concrete but there were stillsome shortcomings [6]

By controlling the molar ratio of acrylic acid and largemonomer polyurethane-modified polycarboxylate (M-PCE) was synthesized at room temperature in this work andits application in ultrahigh-performance concrete wasstudied by comparing Sika high-performancepolycarboxylate

2 Experimental Details

21 Materials )e raw materials used include PmiddotI 425cement silica fume slag and fly ash and the chemicalcompositions are shown in Table 1)e average particle sizeof PmiddotI 425 cement was 3696 μm the average particle size ofslag was 2030 μm and the average particle size of silicafume was 022 μm )e commercially available Sika was ahigh-performance polycarboxylate of which the molecularstructure is shown in Figure 1 )e synthetic materials usedinclude isophorone diisocyanate (IPDI) 1-4-butanedioldihydroxymethyl propionic acid (DMPA) N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone hydroxyl-terminated polysiloxane polyetherdiol and isoprene polyoxyethylene ether (TPEG) with amolecular weight of 2400 acrylic acid (AA) thioglycolicacid sodium methallyl sulfonate (SMS) polyethylene

glycol minus200 (PEG-200) toluene sulphonic acid hydrogenperoxide (H2O2) ascorbic acid (Vc) ammonium persulfate(APS) dilauryl dibutyltin sodium hydroxide and deion-ized water

22 Synthesis of Side Chains )e synthesis equation and thedesigned side chain molecular structure are shown in Fig-ure 2 In the process of synthesis alcohols and aminescontaining hydroxyl groups or amino groups with lowmolecular weight and multifunctional groups were intro-duced into the main chain of polycarboxylate molecules toincrease the number of short branched chains making thelong branched chains of polyethers and the short branchedchains of alcohols and amines distributed alternately andthus increasing the dispersibility and adaptability of poly-carboxylate )e specific operation was as follows

Initially 222 g of isophorone diisocyanate was weighedand transferred to a four-neck round-bottom flask at60ndash80degC and 25 g of polyethylene glycol (Mw 1000) wasadded to the polyethylene glycol along with a quantity ofdibutyltin dilaurate After 1 h 335 g of solid DMPA wasadded and dissolved with 5ndash8ml of N-methyl-2-pyrroli-done For prepolymerization a solution containing 9 g ofhydroxyl-terminated polysiloxane 3 g of 14-butanediol and25 g of sodium methallyl sulfonate (SMS) was added to thebottom flask A polyurethane prepolymer was obtainedwhen the concentration of free -NCO was reduced to 16

)e polymerization reaction of the polyurethane sidechain was as follows

R1H3C

CH3 CH3

CH3 CH3

CH3H2 H2

CH3

H2CH3C R2 C CH

O C CHi

R3

R1

R1 R1R3R1 R2

R4

R2 R3

S i O S ij

OCN NCO HO OH HO OH

OCN HN C O O C

HN

O O

HN C O

O

O C

O

HN NCO

k l

OCN NCOmarked as

2 Advances in Civil Engineering

)e chain extending reaction was as follows

R4OCN NCO H2N C C NH2H2 H2

23 Preparation of Modified PCE (M-PCE) In the synthesisa solution containing 120 g of TPEG 80ml of deionizedwater and 10 g of PEG-200 was fully stirred in a 250ml four-

neck round-bottom flask Another solution containing 01 gof dibutyltin dilaurate 12 g of toluene sulphonic acid and34 g of 30 hydrogen peroxide was added In addition 2

Table 1 Chemical composition of PI 425 Portland cement slag fly ash and silica fume w ()

MaterialChemical composition w ()

SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgOCement 2526 638 405 6467 268Silica fume 9082 103 150 045 083Slag 33 1391 082 3911 1004Fly ash 5429 2255 553 134 256

H2 H2 H2C

HC

C

Cx

O

O

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH3

O

Hn

HC

C O

C O

O

O

C

a

b

Cy

HC

C O

Z

ONa

Figure 1 Chemical structure of commercial Sika polycarboxylate

H2C

HN C

HN

HN C

HN

H2C

O O

m

H2C NH2

H2CH2N R4

Figure 2 Side chainrsquos reaction and its molecular structure

Advances in Civil Engineering 3

groups of solutions (group A and group B) were prepared forthe next step

Group A 108 g AA 0384 g thioglycolic acid and 20 gdeionized waterGroup B 34 g Vc 06 g ammonium persulfate and 20 gdeionized water

With using a peristaltic pump the two groups of so-lutions were added dropwise into the flask at 2mlminwithin 15 h)e solution was heated and incubated for 3 h at40degC before adding NaOH to adjust the pH to 6-7 to preparePCE solution )e chemical structure of M-PCE is shown inFigure 3

24 Water-Reducing Rate Test of Cement MortarAccording to GBT8077-2012 ldquoConcrete Admixture Ho-mogeneity Test Methodrdquo the mortar water-reducing rate ofpolycarboxylate was tested after jumping for 30 consecutivebeats based on the following formula

water minus reducing rate M0 minus M1

M0times 100 (1)

where M0 represents the water consumption when theflowability of mortar was 180mmplusmn 5mm andM1 representsthe water consumption when the flowability of admixturemortar reached 180mmplusmn 5mm

25 Mix Rate of UHPC Based on quadrature design thecontent of polycarboxylate was 2 of the binder component(mass ratio) the water-binder ratio of ultrahigh strengthconcrete was 018 and the sand-binder ratio was 10 )emix ratio is shown in Table 2

Quaternion orthogonal design was adopted in this workMatlab software was used for calculation if the mixture wascomposed of four components X1 X2 X3 and X4 then

Y β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + β4X4 + β12X1X2

+ β13X1X3 + β14X1X4 + β23X2X3 + β24X2X4

+ β34X3X4 + β123X1X2X3 + β124X1X2X4

+ β134X1X3X4 + β234X2X3X4 + β1234X1X2X3X4

(2)

where Y was the dependent variable which could be anystructure or performance characteristics of cement-basedmaterials I was a coefficient and X1 X2 X3 and X4 werefour components Fifteen orthogonal designs were used todesign the compos7ition of cementitious materials andthen the relation between the composition of cementitiousmaterials and the performance of ultrahigh strength con-crete was established

26 Flowability )e sand with a particle size below 236mmwas selected the cementation material mass was 200 g thesand-binder ratio was 1 1 the water-binder ratio was 018and the mixing amount of polycarboxylate mother liquor

was 2)emortar flowability was tested when it jumped 30times on the table

27 Strength In the test of cement mortar a group of40mmtimes 40mmtimes 160mm test bodies was formed by usingfine sand with particle size below 236mm with the sand-binder ratio of 1 1 and the flowability of cement mortarmaintained above 140mm )e test mold was a triple moldand the curing time was 24 hours the temperature of thecuring box with mold curing was kept at 20degCplusmn 1degC and therelative humidity was not lower than 90)en themold wasremoved and put into the steam curing chamber the dryingchamber temperature was 20degCplusmn 3degC )e strength of mortarat the 1st day 3rd day 7th day 14th day and 28th day wasmeasured

28 Dry Shrinkage According to the provisions of JCT603-2004 ldquoDry Shrinkage Test Method of Cement Mortarrdquo a setof 25mmtimes 25mmtimes 280mm test bodies was prepared Aftertesting initial reading the test body was put into the dryingchamber the drying chamber temperature was 20degCplusmn 3degCthe relative humidity was 50plusmn 4 and then the length oftest body at the 1st day 3rd day 7th day 14th day 21th day28th day 56th day and 90th day was measured

)e results were calculated as follows

Sn L0 minus L28( 1113857 times 100

280 (3)

where Sn is the dry shrinkage rate of cement mortar test bodyat the n-th day percentage () L0 is the initial reading mmL28 is the measured reading at the 28th day mm and 280 isthe effective length mm

29 Autogenous Shrinkage )e autogenous shrinkage ofmortar in self-compacting cement mortar was measured byjointly using bellow and noncontact probe )e inner di-ameter of the bellow was 20mm and the length range was340plusmn 5mm which could transform the volume deformationof the flowing mortar into the length deformation )eflowability of cement mortar was kept above 140mm andthe autogenous shrinkage change of cement mortar wascontinuously measured and recorded within 72 hours aftercasting

3 Results and Discussion

31MortarWater-ReducingRate )ewater consumption ofbenchmark mortar without using polycarboxylate was2050 g After jumping 30 times the flowability was 186mmand 175m with an average of about 180mm )e experi-mental results are shown in Table 3

It could be seen from the above results that the waterreduction rate of M-PCE in mortar was not much differentfrom that of Sika From the perspective of molecularstructure Sikarsquos dispersion groups were mainly long-chainalkyl monomers and its dispersion principle was mainlyelectrostatic repulsion and steric hindrance effect In

4 Advances in Civil Engineering

contrast M-PCErsquos dispersion ability was promoted by thestrong chemical bond caused by siloxane groups in M-PCEand silicate phase [7] In addition M-PCE had longer sidechains than PCE so it had better steric hindrance [8] andexcellent dispersion in cement Levi et al [9] obtained asimilar conclusion by testing the effect of three types ofsilane (triethoxy silane (TEOS) 3-aminopropyl triethoxysilane (APTES) and N-2-aminoethyl-3-aminopropyl tri-methoxy silane (AEAPTMS)) on mobility )e resultsshowed that AEAPTMS had the best dispersion in freshcement paste )e main reason was that the siloxane groupin the polyurethane side chain produced by alkoxy hydro-lysis of silane molecules acted as an anchoring group on thecement surface resulting in full adsorption of silane mol-ecules on the cement particle and siloxane chain in a certainway exerted the steric effect between the cement particles

resulting in the disperse effect of cement )e anchoringcapacity of the siloxane group on cement or hydrationproducts had been demonstrated by the enhanced adsorp-tion behavior of the silane-modified polycarboxylate incement [10]

32 Flowability )e flowability of UHPC with the ce-mentitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash isshown in Table 4 )e quaternion orthogonal analysis isshown in Figures 4 and 5

According to the UHPC flowability test results in Ta-ble 4 the relationship between the initial flowability Y ofUHPC with M-PCE or Sika used as polycarboxylate and thecomposition of cementing material was established asshown in the following equation

CH2 CH

COOH

HSCH2COOH NaOH OH2

CH2

CH2

O

H

a

NH

C

HN

R4

HN

C

HN

H2C

H2C

O

O

m

NH2

H2C

H2C

NH2

C CH

CH3

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH3

O

O

CH3

HC C CH CH2CH2

HC CH2

HC

ed f g

C

O

O

H

a

CH3

C

O

O

C

O

C O

ONa

b

CH2HC

h

O

CH2 CH2

CH2 CH2

CH2

CH3

CH2

R4

O

C O

ONa

C O

NH

C

NH

HN

C

HN

H2C

H2C

O

O

mNH2

Figure 3 Chemical structure of synthesized M-PCE

Advances in Civil Engineering 5

Y(MminusPCE) 17X1 + 05X2 + 13X3 + 56X4 + 0018X1X2

+ 0043X1X3 + 0113X1X4 + 0341X2X3

+ 1009X2X4 + 056X3X4 minus 000509X1X2X3

minus 001644X1X2X4 minus 000909X1X3X4

minus 006326X2X3X4 minus 00014717X1X2X3X4

(4)

Y(Sika) 17X1 + 19X2 + 218X3 + 437X4 + 0064X1X2

+ 00624X1X3 + 00878X1X4 + 09581X2X3+ 11522X2X4 + 06354X3X4 minus 0017113X1X2X3minus 019207X1X2X4 minus 0011209X1X3X4minus 0023754X2X3X4 minus 00019255X1X2X3X4

(5)

According to formulas (4)-(5) the influence of silicatecement on the flowability of UHPC with M-PCE or Sika wasthe same )e values of β123 β124 β134 β234 and β1234 wereall negative indicating that the use of three or more ce-mentitious materials had a negative synergistic effect on theflowability of UHPC although this effect was very weak Onthe contrary the remaining parameters were all positiveindicating that the use of one or two cementitious materialsalone had some positive effect on the flowability of UHPC

As could be seen from Table 4 the flowability of UHPCdecreased as the amount of silica fume increased from 0 to50)is was due to that the silica fume had a small particlesize and the surface of silica fume would absorb a lot ofwater reducers [11] Under the action of polycarboxylatessilica fume acted as an ultrafine particle to disperse cementparticles releasing more free water [12 13] For ordinaryconcrete the amount of silica fume was usually less than10 For high strength and durability concrete it wasnecessary to increase the amount of silica fume to 10 inorder to maintain a certain slump under the action of

polycarboxylate [14] )e amount of silica fume in UHPCwas usually less than 15 [15] It was found that if theamount of silica fume was over 25 it would make UHPCvery thick and reduce the flowability of UHPC Meanwhilethe flowability of UHPC also decreased when the amount ofslag exceeded 25 since the specific surface area of slag wassmaller than that of cement more free water was needed toachieve the same flowability )erefore silica fume and slagsignificantly affected the flowability of UHPC

33 Strength In the cementitious system of cement silicafume slag and fly ash UHPCwas prepared by usingM-PCEand Sika polycarboxylates respectively )e strength of pre-pared UHPC is shown in Table 5 )e quaternion orthogonalanalysis of strength of UHPC is shown in Figures 6 and 7

According to the UHPC strength test results in Table 5the relationship between the 28-day strength Y of UHPCwith M-PCE and Sika used as polycarboxylate and thecomposition of cementing materials was established asshown in the following equation

Y(MminusPCE) 1074X1 + 1164X2 + 2192X3 minus 3006X4

+ 00044X1X2 minus 001912X1X3 + 006038X1X4

minus 16665X2X3 + 01011X2X4 + 07579X3X4

+ 00034705X1X2X3 minus 0000729X1X2X4

minus 00008859X1X3X4 minus 00067229X2X3X4

minus 0000098075X1X2X3X4

(6)

Y(Sika) 109X1 + 109X2 + 207X3 minus 359X4

+ 00026X1X2 minus 00138X1X3 + 0072X1X4minus 00808X2X3 + 02081X2X4 + 01396X3X4+ 0001438X1X2X3 minus 0003189X1X2X4minus 00023989X1X3X4 minus 0008072X2X3X4minus 000014719X1X2X3X4

(7)

From formulas (6)-(7) it could be seen that eitherM-PCE or Sika was used and the effect of silicate cement onthe strength of UHPC (28 d) was almost the same that is thecoefficients on X1 were almost the same In addition thecoefficients of X4 X1X3 X2X3 X1X2X3 X1X2X3 X1X2X4X1X3X4 X2X3X4 X1X2X3X4 X1X2X3X4 X1X2X3X4 andX1X2X3X4 were found to be negative indicating that theseincorporation methods had a negative synergistic effect onthe strength of UHPC (28 d) Compared with the incor-poration of silicate cement and silica fume the incorpora-tion of silicate cement and fly ash had a positive influence onthe strength of UHPC (28 d)

It could be seen from Table 5 that there was little differencein the compressive strength of HUPC prepared with M-PCEand that prepared with Sika )e polyorganosiloxane group inM-PCE mother liquor could promote hydration Although

Table 2 Binder compositions of UHPC

No Cement () Silica fume () Slag () Fly ash ()N1 100 0 0 0N2 50 50 0 0N3 50 0 50 0N4 50 0 0 50N5 75 25 0 0N6 75 0 25 0N7 75 0 0 25N8 50 25 25 0N9 50 25 0 25N10 50 0 25 25N11 666 167 167 0N12 666 167 0 167N13 666 0 167 167N14 50 167 167 167N15 625 125 125 125

6 Advances in Civil Engineering

Table 3 Water reduction rate of polycarboxylate in mortar

Polycarboxylate Cement (g) Sand (g) Water (M1) (g) Flowability Water-reducing rate ()M-PCE 450 1350 1286 180mm 183mm 373Sika 450 1350 1335 180mm 185mm 348

Table 4 Initial flowability of UHPC with different compositions (mm)

PolycarboxylateNumber

N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8 N9 N10 N11 N12 N13 N14 N15M-PCE 165 153 125 192 170 172 195 193 235 170 165 146 155 178 102Sika 170 150 132 210 200 190 183 205 238 156 135 142 140 160 110

00

190

160

140150

150 170160

180

170

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

Silica fumeFl

y ash

220

150200

190

170

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Slag

Fly a

sh

135

140

185

145

150

175

155155

165

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00

01

02

03

04

05221

157

205

173

181

189

00

02

04

06

08

10

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 4 Flowability of UHPC with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (M-PCE)

Advances in Civil Engineering 7

Silica fumeSla

g

150180

190

150

180

170

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

170

220

150200

170

190

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Slag

Fly a

sh

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

145

145

185

175

175

155

165

135

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

195

225

205195

165

185

00 02 04 06 08 10

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 5 Flowability of UHPC with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (Sika)

Table 5 Compressive strength of UHPC

NumberCompressive strength (MPa)

M-PCE Sika3 d 28 d 3 d 28 d

N1 716 1074 748 1088N2 745 1009 821 1154N3 700 1155 837 1233N4 667 1163 644 1188N5 712 1014 804 1137N6 709 995 783 1074N7 647 1186 848 1269N8 769 1125 724 1138N9 810 1174 869 1156N10 793 1046 815 1015N11 776 1194 893 1169N12 800 1174 800 1125N13 858 1085 838 1062N14 827 1103 847 1179N15 864 1187 836 1091

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

102

102

106

118

104

104

116

114

106

112

108

110

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

104

108

118

110

110

112116114

102

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

118116

104

114

112

108

Slag

Fly a

sh

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

108116

109

112108

109

112

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 6 Compressive strength of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

119118

116

109

117

116 111

113

115

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

124123

113

122 121

120119118

117

114

115

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Figure 7 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

Sika was relatively simple in the molecular structure it couldalso be compatible with silicate cement and promote hydrationdue to its advanced compounding process As the silica fumecontent increased the early compressive strength of UHPCgradually increased however when silica fume contentexceeded 25 this trend slowed low Due to the high poz-zolanic activity and microaggregate effect of silica fume silicafume could improve the compressive strength of UHPCAmorphous SiO2 in silica fume reacts with calcium hydroxideproduced by cement hydration to form hydrated calciumsilicate (C-S-H) which could improve the early strength ofUHPC [16 17] It could be seen from Table 5 that when theamount of silica fume was greater than 25 the compressivestrength of UHPC (28d) increased slightly with the increase inthe amount of silica fume In addition it was found that theaddition of slag reduced the compressive strength of UHPC(3d) but increased the strength of UHPC (28h) )is wasbecause when silica fume and slag were mixed in a properproportion a suitable ratio of calcium to silicon (CS) could beproduced Previous studies had shown that in order to makeconcrete stronger the optimal composition of cementingmaterials depends on the fineness of siliceous materials and theratio of calcium to silicon [18] When the ratio of calcium tosilicon was 13 1 the strength of UHPC was greater than thatof silica fume [19]

34 Dry Shrinkage Under the cementation system of ce-ment-silica fume-slag-fly ash UHPC was prepared by usingM-PCE and Sika polycarboxylate respectively )e change indry shrinkage of UHPC for 28 d is shown in Figures 8 and 9

According to the 28-day dry shrinkage test results ofUHPC in Figures 8 and 9 the relationship between the 28-day dry shrinkage Y of UHPC prepared with M-PCE andSika as polycarboxylate and the composition of cementitiousmaterials was established as shown in the followingequation

Y(MminusPCE) 9X1 + 20X2 + 9X3 minus 8X4 minus 027X1X2

minus 006X1X3 + 017X1X4 + 072X2X3

+ 135X2X4 + 088X3X4 minus 00123X1X2X3

minus 00228X1X2X4 minus 0014X1X3X4

minus 08226X2X3X4 + 0015593X1X2X3X4

(8)

Y(Sika) 9X1 + 18X2 + 12X3 minus 15X4 minus 021X1X2

minus 001X1X3 minus 029X1X4 + 043X2X3+ 162X2X4 + 08896X3X4 minus 00071X1X2X3minus 00287X1X2X4 minus 00143X1X3X4minus 07467X2X3X4 + 0013826X1X2X3X4

(9)

From formulas (8)-(9) it could be seen that whenM-PCE and Sika were used silicate cement had the sameeffect on the drying shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) that is thecoefficients of X1 were the same In addition the coefficientsof X4 X1X2 X1X3 X1X2X3 X1X2X4 and X1X3X4 were allnegative indicating that the dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d)could be effectively reduced by only adding silicate cementand silica fume slag and fly ash

As could be seen from Figures 8 and 9 the dry shrinkagevalue of UHPC prepared byM-PCE was slightly greater thanthat of UHPC prepared by Sika Although the molecularstructure of M-PCE contained a large number of water-reducing groups (alcohol groups) it was the M-PCE mothersolution that was used in this experiment In contrast therewere still water-reducing groups in Sikarsquos molecular struc-ture which was more effective in reducing the surfacetension of pore solution [20])erefore the dry shrinkage ofUHPC prepared by Sika would be smaller than that ofUHPC prepared by M-PCE

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

126 122120

104

108

112

108

Slag

Fly a

sh

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

104

116

108 112

116

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 7 Compressive strength of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (Sika)

10 Advances in Civil Engineering

825

675800

800775

775700

725

750

2505 06 07 08 09 10

Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

855

755

805780

730

655

755730

680

705

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

850690

830

810790

710770

730750

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

800

625650

750

675700

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 8 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

770755

680

740740

710

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

7

750

625

775

725

750

700

725

650

675

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 9 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

)e incorporation of fly ash would refine the porestructure of mortar reduce the connectivity of pores andincrease the difficulty in water migration under dryingconditions which showed a positive effect on dryingshrinkage that is drying shrinkage would be greatly re-duced [21] )erefore it was found from Figures 8 and 9that the dry shrinkage of UHPC became much larger whensilica fume content was around 50 )is was because theeffect of silica fume on the drying shrinkage of UHPC wasmainly due to the volcanic ash effect Silica fume had highactivity and could react with the hydration productCa(OH)2 to form C-S-H gel which on the one hand notonly reduced the amount of flake crystal Ca(OH)2 andincreased the amount of C-S-H in cement but also on theother hand refines the pore size and improves the porestructure However C-S-H gel itself had a porous structureand would contract under dry conditions while Ca(OH)2was a crystal structure which generally would not contractAt the same time part of Ca(OH)2 was distributed in thevoid of C-S-H gel which had an inhibitory effect on itscontraction [22] )e pozzolanite reaction consumesCa(OH)2 in the cement which eliminates the restrictioneffect of Ca(OH)2 on C-S-H gel shrinkage )erefore itcould be deduced that the higher the reaction degree ofvolcanic ash the greater the drying shrinkage value of thecorresponding specimen)eoretically there was a positivecorrelation between the degree of ash reaction and thecontent of silica fume)erefore the incorporation of silicafume could enhance the dry shrinkage of UHPC

35 Autogenous Shrinkage Under the cementitious systemof cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash UHPC was prepared byusing M-PCE and Sika respectively and the autogenousshrinkage changes in prepared UHPC are shown in Fig-ures 10 and 11

According to the 3-day autogenous shrinkage test resultsof UHPC in Figures 10 and 11 the relation between 3-dayautogenous shrinkage Y of UHPCwith eitherM-PCE or Sikaand the composition of cementation material was estab-lished as shown in the following equation

Y(MminusPCE) 9X1 + 3X2 + 48X3 minus 61X4 + 038X1X2

minus 032X1X3 + 121X1X4 minus 4X2X3

minus 269X2X4 minus 007X3X4 + 006793X1X2X3

+ 005428X1X2X4 + 00098X1X3X4

+ 06089X2X3X4 minus 0010649X1X2X3X4

(10)

Y(Sika) 9X1 + 11X2 + 27X3 minus 78X4 + 081X1X2

minus 027X1X3 + 1579X1X4 minus 019X2X3minus 01X2X4 minus 201X3X4 + 00101X1X2X3+ 00108X1X2X4 + 00435X1X3X4+ 06575X2X3X4 minus 001182X1X2X3X4

(11)

From formulas (10)-(11) it could be seen that silicatecement had the same effect on the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC when either M-PCE or Sika was used that is thecoefficients of X1 were the same In addition the coeffi-cients of X4 X1X3 X2X3 X2X4 X3X4 and X1X2X3X4were all negative indicating the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC could be effectively reduced by either adding flyash silicate cement and slag silica fume and slag silicafume and fly ash or adding the four kinds of cementingmaterials )e other admixture measures all could in-crease the self-contraction of UHPC As could be seenfrom Figures 10 and 11 the influence of M-PCE on UHPCself-shrinking was almost the same as that of Sika onUHPC From the molecular perspective their molecular

790775

760745

700

730

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

550

500

750

550

650

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 9 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (Sika)

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

19001100

1500

1700

1400

16001500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1600 1100

1200

1600

1300

1300

1400

1400

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

1900

1000

1700

1200

1600

1400

1500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1800

1200

1700

13001400

1600

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 10 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

1900 1200

1400

1300

1800

1400

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1400

1500

1400

1800

1500

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 11 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

structure contains a large number of polyethylene glycolreduction groups which could effectively reduce thesurface tension of pore solution )erefore the autoge-nous shrinkage value of UHPC prepared by pure silicatecement was small

In addition we found that adding silica fume alonewould increase the autogenous shrinkage of UHPC whichwas consistent with the results in [23] )e main reasonscould be listed as follows (1) silica fume fineness waslarge and its unique filling effect could refine the porestructure of cement-based materials (2) Ca(OH)2 gen-erated in the early stage was not well grown and very smallin particle size After the addition of silica fume it waseasy to react quickly with silica fume to produce calciumsilicate hydrate with low CS ratio making the interfacebetween the unhydrated cement particles and calciumsilicate hydrate become more compact and uniform [24](3) when the content of silica fume was high the excesssilica fume could continue to react with the generated C-S-H to produce the outer layer of calcium silicate hydratewith a lower CS ratio making the structure of the ce-ment-based materials doped with silica fume more dense[25] )erefore silica fume could reduce the porosity andaverage pore size of UHPC Since the value of autogenousshrinkage was related to the capillary pressure of cement-based materials the capillary pressure was mainly relatedto its diameter )e greater the silica fume content thesmaller the capillary diameter the greater the capillarypressure the greater the value of autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC

Because the chemical shrinkage induced by pozzolanicreaction of slag was greater than that induced by cementhydration it was found that the effect of single dosage of slagon UHPCrsquos autogenous shrinkage was great Meanwhile theactivity and hydration degree of slag was greater than that ofsilicate cement which greatly promoted the growth ofcapillary negative pressure and increased the action area[26 27]

4 Conclusions

In this study pectiniform polycarboxylate was synthesized atroom temperature and its applications in UHPC includingflowability strength drying shrinkage and autogenousshrinkage were investigated )e following conclusionscould be obtained based on the above experimental resultsand discussion

(1) )e polysiloxane in molecular structure had bettercompatibility with silicate cement When eitherM-PCE or Sika was used the positive influence ofsilicate cement on the flowability of UHPC was thesame It is worth noting that the use of three or morecementitious materials had a negative synergisticeffect on the flowability of UHPC although this effectwas weak

(2) )ere was little difference in compressive strength ofHUPC prepared by M-PCE and Sika )e incor-poration of cement with silica fume and that ofcement with fly ash both had a positive effect on the28-day strength of UHPC

(3) )e incorporation of fly ash could effectively reducethe drying shrinkage and autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC In terms of dry shrinkage the dosage of silicafume and fly ash could effectively reduce the 28-daydry shrinkage of UHPC Other incorporationmethods would all increase the 28-day dry shrinkageof UHPC to varying degrees From the perspective ofautogenous shrinkage the incorporation of silicafume and slag that of silica fume and fly ash or thatof all four cementing materials could all effectivelyreduce the 3-day autogenous shrinkage of UHPC

Data Availability

All the data used during the study are available from thecorresponding author by request

1300

1500

14001800

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1500

1300

1600

14001500

1800

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 11 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (Sika)

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

Conflicts of Interest

)e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest

Authorsrsquo Contributions

Shuncheng Xiang conceptualized the study preparedmethodology investigated the study performed datacuration did formal analysis wrote the original draft andrevised the manuscript Yingli Gao administrated theproject obtained funding acquisition and supervised thestudy

Acknowledgments

)e authors gratefully acknowledge the financial supportfrom the National Natural Science Foundation of China(General Program 51978080) Civil Aviation Administrationof China (U1833127) Hunan Province Natural ScienceFoundation (2018JJ4016) Key Scientific Research Projects ofHunan Education Department (18A129) National Key RampDProgram of China (Grant number 2018YFB1600100) andOpen Fund (Grant number kfj190503) of Key Laboratory ofSpecial Environment Road Engineering of Hunan Province(Changsha University of Science amp Technology)

References

[1] P J Andersen D M Roy J M Gaidis and WR Grace andCompany ldquo)e effects of adsorption of superplasticizers onthe surface of cementrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 17no 5 pp 805ndash813 1987

[2] C-Z Li N-Q Feng Y-D Li and R-J Chen ldquoEffects ofpolyethlene oxide chains on the performance of poly-carboxylate-type water-reducersrdquo Cement and Concrete Re-search vol 35 no 5 pp 867ndash873 2005

[3] B He Y Gao L Qu K Duan W Zhou and G PeildquoCharacteristics analysis of self-luminescent cement-basedcomposite materials with self-cleaning effectrdquo Journal ofCleaner Production vol 225 pp 1169ndash1183 2019

[4] Y Gao L Qu B He K Dai Z Fang and R Zhu ldquoStudy oneffectiveness of anti-icing and deicing performance of super-hydrophobic asphalt concreterdquo Construction and BuildingMaterials vol 191 pp 270ndash280 2018

[5] C J Shi ldquoRecent development of PC superplasticizersrdquo inProceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on MixDesign Performance and Use of SCC pp 16ndash25 BeijingChina June 2009

[6] K R Duan Y L Gao H Yao et al ldquoComparison of per-formances of early aged pre-vibrated cement-stabilizedmacadam formed by different compactionsrdquo Constructionand Building Materials vol 239 2020

[7] P C Aitcin ldquo)e durability characteristics of high perfor-mance con-crete reviewrdquo Cement and Concrete Compositesvol 25 pp 409ndash420 2003

[8] M Jones R Dhir and J Gill ldquoConcrete surface treatmenteffect of exposure temperature on chloride diffusion resis-tancerdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 1pp 197ndash208 1995

[9] M Levi C Ferro D Regazzoli G Dotelli and A Lopresti ldquoComparative evaluation method of polymer sur-face treatments applied on high performance concreterdquo

Journal of Materials Science vol 37 no 22 pp 4881ndash48882002

[10] J L )ompson M R Silsbee P M Gill and B E ScheetzldquoCharacterization of silicate sealers on concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 27 no 10 pp 1561ndash1567 1997

[11] D A Kagi and K B Ren ldquoReduction of water absorption insilicate treated concrete by post-treatment with cationicsurfactantsrdquo Building and Environment vol 30 no 2pp 237ndash243 1995

[12] R P Khatri V Sirivivatnanon and W Gross ldquoEffect ofdifferent supplementary cementitious materials on mechan-ical properties of high performance concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 25 no 1 pp 209ndash220 1995

[13] B K Ganesh and P P V Surya ldquoEfficiency of silica fume inconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 6pp 1273ndash1283 1995

[14] R Duval and E H Kadri ldquoInfluence of silica fume on theworkability and the compressive strength of high-perfor-mance concretesrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 28no 4 pp 533ndash547 1998

[15] K H Khayat and P C Aitcin ldquoSilica fume a unique-supplementary cementitious materialrdquo in Mineral Admix-turesin Cement and Concrete S N Ghosh Ed pp 227ndash265ABI Books Private Limited New Delhi India 1993

[16] M Mazloom A A Ramezanianpour and J J Brooks ldquoEffectof silica fume on mechanical properties of high-strengthconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Composites vol 26 no 4pp 347ndash357 2004

[17] T K Erdem and O Kırca ldquoUse of binary and ternary blendsin high strength concreterdquo Construction and Building Ma-terials vol 22 no 7 pp 1477ndash1483 2008

[18] A Elahi P A M Basheer S V Nanukuttan andQ U Z Khan ldquoMechanical and durability properties of highperformance concretes containing supplementary cementi-tious materialsrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 24no 3 pp 292ndash299 2010

[19] Y Dang N Xie A Kessel E McVey A Pace and X ShildquoAccelerated laboratory evaluation of surface treatments forprotecting concrete bridge decks from salt scalingrdquo Con-struction and Building Materials vol 55 pp 128ndash135 2014

[20] J Zhang L Ding F Li and J Peng ldquoRecycled aggregates fromconstruction and demolition wastes as alternative fillingmaterials for highway subgrades in Chinardquo Journal of CleanerProduction vol 255 p 120223 2020

[21] J Zhang F Gu and Y Q Zhang ldquoUse of building-relatedconstruction and demolition wastes in highway embankmentlaboratory and field evaluationsrdquo Journal of Cleaner Pro-duction vol 230 pp 1051ndash1060 2019

[22] H Zhang ldquo)e effect of curing conditions on compressivestrength of ultra high strength concrete with high volumemineral admixturesrdquo Building and Environment vol 42pp 2083ndash2089 2007

[23] S-Y Hong and F P Glasser ldquoPhase relations in the CaO-SiO2-H2O system to 200degC at saturated steam pressurerdquoCement and Concrete Research vol 34 no 9 pp 1529ndash15342004

[24] M H Zhang C T Tam and M P Leow ldquoEffect of water-to-cementitious materials ratio and silica fume on the autoge-nous shrinkage of concreterdquo Cement and Concrete Researchvol 33 no 10 pp 1687ndash1694 2003

[25] H Li Z Yi and Y Xie ldquoProgress of silane impregnatingsurface treatment technology of concrete structurerdquoMaterialsReview vol 26 no 3 pp 120ndash125 2012

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

[26] Z D Rong W Sun H J Xiao and W Wang ldquoEffect of silicafume and fly ash on hydration and microstructure evolutionof cement based composites at low water-binder ratiosrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 51 pp 446ndash4502014

[27] M H F Medeiros and P Helene ldquoSurface treatment ofreinforced concrete in marine environment influence onchloride diffusion coefficient and capillary water absorptionrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 23 no 3pp 1476ndash1484 2009

16 Advances in Civil Engineering

)e chain extending reaction was as follows

R4OCN NCO H2N C C NH2H2 H2

23 Preparation of Modified PCE (M-PCE) In the synthesisa solution containing 120 g of TPEG 80ml of deionizedwater and 10 g of PEG-200 was fully stirred in a 250ml four-

neck round-bottom flask Another solution containing 01 gof dibutyltin dilaurate 12 g of toluene sulphonic acid and34 g of 30 hydrogen peroxide was added In addition 2

Table 1 Chemical composition of PI 425 Portland cement slag fly ash and silica fume w ()

MaterialChemical composition w ()

SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgOCement 2526 638 405 6467 268Silica fume 9082 103 150 045 083Slag 33 1391 082 3911 1004Fly ash 5429 2255 553 134 256

H2 H2 H2C

HC

C

Cx

O

O

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH3

O

Hn

HC

C O

C O

O

O

C

a

b

Cy

HC

C O

Z

ONa

Figure 1 Chemical structure of commercial Sika polycarboxylate

H2C

HN C

HN

HN C

HN

H2C

O O

m

H2C NH2

H2CH2N R4

Figure 2 Side chainrsquos reaction and its molecular structure

Advances in Civil Engineering 3

groups of solutions (group A and group B) were prepared forthe next step

Group A 108 g AA 0384 g thioglycolic acid and 20 gdeionized waterGroup B 34 g Vc 06 g ammonium persulfate and 20 gdeionized water

With using a peristaltic pump the two groups of so-lutions were added dropwise into the flask at 2mlminwithin 15 h)e solution was heated and incubated for 3 h at40degC before adding NaOH to adjust the pH to 6-7 to preparePCE solution )e chemical structure of M-PCE is shown inFigure 3

24 Water-Reducing Rate Test of Cement MortarAccording to GBT8077-2012 ldquoConcrete Admixture Ho-mogeneity Test Methodrdquo the mortar water-reducing rate ofpolycarboxylate was tested after jumping for 30 consecutivebeats based on the following formula

water minus reducing rate M0 minus M1

M0times 100 (1)

where M0 represents the water consumption when theflowability of mortar was 180mmplusmn 5mm andM1 representsthe water consumption when the flowability of admixturemortar reached 180mmplusmn 5mm

25 Mix Rate of UHPC Based on quadrature design thecontent of polycarboxylate was 2 of the binder component(mass ratio) the water-binder ratio of ultrahigh strengthconcrete was 018 and the sand-binder ratio was 10 )emix ratio is shown in Table 2

Quaternion orthogonal design was adopted in this workMatlab software was used for calculation if the mixture wascomposed of four components X1 X2 X3 and X4 then

Y β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + β4X4 + β12X1X2

+ β13X1X3 + β14X1X4 + β23X2X3 + β24X2X4

+ β34X3X4 + β123X1X2X3 + β124X1X2X4

+ β134X1X3X4 + β234X2X3X4 + β1234X1X2X3X4

(2)

where Y was the dependent variable which could be anystructure or performance characteristics of cement-basedmaterials I was a coefficient and X1 X2 X3 and X4 werefour components Fifteen orthogonal designs were used todesign the compos7ition of cementitious materials andthen the relation between the composition of cementitiousmaterials and the performance of ultrahigh strength con-crete was established

26 Flowability )e sand with a particle size below 236mmwas selected the cementation material mass was 200 g thesand-binder ratio was 1 1 the water-binder ratio was 018and the mixing amount of polycarboxylate mother liquor

was 2)emortar flowability was tested when it jumped 30times on the table

27 Strength In the test of cement mortar a group of40mmtimes 40mmtimes 160mm test bodies was formed by usingfine sand with particle size below 236mm with the sand-binder ratio of 1 1 and the flowability of cement mortarmaintained above 140mm )e test mold was a triple moldand the curing time was 24 hours the temperature of thecuring box with mold curing was kept at 20degCplusmn 1degC and therelative humidity was not lower than 90)en themold wasremoved and put into the steam curing chamber the dryingchamber temperature was 20degCplusmn 3degC )e strength of mortarat the 1st day 3rd day 7th day 14th day and 28th day wasmeasured

28 Dry Shrinkage According to the provisions of JCT603-2004 ldquoDry Shrinkage Test Method of Cement Mortarrdquo a setof 25mmtimes 25mmtimes 280mm test bodies was prepared Aftertesting initial reading the test body was put into the dryingchamber the drying chamber temperature was 20degCplusmn 3degCthe relative humidity was 50plusmn 4 and then the length oftest body at the 1st day 3rd day 7th day 14th day 21th day28th day 56th day and 90th day was measured

)e results were calculated as follows

Sn L0 minus L28( 1113857 times 100

280 (3)

where Sn is the dry shrinkage rate of cement mortar test bodyat the n-th day percentage () L0 is the initial reading mmL28 is the measured reading at the 28th day mm and 280 isthe effective length mm

29 Autogenous Shrinkage )e autogenous shrinkage ofmortar in self-compacting cement mortar was measured byjointly using bellow and noncontact probe )e inner di-ameter of the bellow was 20mm and the length range was340plusmn 5mm which could transform the volume deformationof the flowing mortar into the length deformation )eflowability of cement mortar was kept above 140mm andthe autogenous shrinkage change of cement mortar wascontinuously measured and recorded within 72 hours aftercasting

3 Results and Discussion

31MortarWater-ReducingRate )ewater consumption ofbenchmark mortar without using polycarboxylate was2050 g After jumping 30 times the flowability was 186mmand 175m with an average of about 180mm )e experi-mental results are shown in Table 3

It could be seen from the above results that the waterreduction rate of M-PCE in mortar was not much differentfrom that of Sika From the perspective of molecularstructure Sikarsquos dispersion groups were mainly long-chainalkyl monomers and its dispersion principle was mainlyelectrostatic repulsion and steric hindrance effect In

4 Advances in Civil Engineering

contrast M-PCErsquos dispersion ability was promoted by thestrong chemical bond caused by siloxane groups in M-PCEand silicate phase [7] In addition M-PCE had longer sidechains than PCE so it had better steric hindrance [8] andexcellent dispersion in cement Levi et al [9] obtained asimilar conclusion by testing the effect of three types ofsilane (triethoxy silane (TEOS) 3-aminopropyl triethoxysilane (APTES) and N-2-aminoethyl-3-aminopropyl tri-methoxy silane (AEAPTMS)) on mobility )e resultsshowed that AEAPTMS had the best dispersion in freshcement paste )e main reason was that the siloxane groupin the polyurethane side chain produced by alkoxy hydro-lysis of silane molecules acted as an anchoring group on thecement surface resulting in full adsorption of silane mol-ecules on the cement particle and siloxane chain in a certainway exerted the steric effect between the cement particles

resulting in the disperse effect of cement )e anchoringcapacity of the siloxane group on cement or hydrationproducts had been demonstrated by the enhanced adsorp-tion behavior of the silane-modified polycarboxylate incement [10]

32 Flowability )e flowability of UHPC with the ce-mentitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash isshown in Table 4 )e quaternion orthogonal analysis isshown in Figures 4 and 5

According to the UHPC flowability test results in Ta-ble 4 the relationship between the initial flowability Y ofUHPC with M-PCE or Sika used as polycarboxylate and thecomposition of cementing material was established asshown in the following equation

CH2 CH

COOH

HSCH2COOH NaOH OH2

CH2

CH2

O

H

a

NH

C

HN

R4

HN

C

HN

H2C

H2C

O

O

m

NH2

H2C

H2C

NH2

C CH

CH3

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH3

O

O

CH3

HC C CH CH2CH2

HC CH2

HC

ed f g

C

O

O

H

a

CH3

C

O

O

C

O

C O

ONa

b

CH2HC

h

O

CH2 CH2

CH2 CH2

CH2

CH3

CH2

R4

O

C O

ONa

C O

NH

C

NH

HN

C

HN

H2C

H2C

O

O

mNH2

Figure 3 Chemical structure of synthesized M-PCE

Advances in Civil Engineering 5

Y(MminusPCE) 17X1 + 05X2 + 13X3 + 56X4 + 0018X1X2

+ 0043X1X3 + 0113X1X4 + 0341X2X3

+ 1009X2X4 + 056X3X4 minus 000509X1X2X3

minus 001644X1X2X4 minus 000909X1X3X4

minus 006326X2X3X4 minus 00014717X1X2X3X4

(4)

Y(Sika) 17X1 + 19X2 + 218X3 + 437X4 + 0064X1X2

+ 00624X1X3 + 00878X1X4 + 09581X2X3+ 11522X2X4 + 06354X3X4 minus 0017113X1X2X3minus 019207X1X2X4 minus 0011209X1X3X4minus 0023754X2X3X4 minus 00019255X1X2X3X4

(5)

According to formulas (4)-(5) the influence of silicatecement on the flowability of UHPC with M-PCE or Sika wasthe same )e values of β123 β124 β134 β234 and β1234 wereall negative indicating that the use of three or more ce-mentitious materials had a negative synergistic effect on theflowability of UHPC although this effect was very weak Onthe contrary the remaining parameters were all positiveindicating that the use of one or two cementitious materialsalone had some positive effect on the flowability of UHPC

As could be seen from Table 4 the flowability of UHPCdecreased as the amount of silica fume increased from 0 to50)is was due to that the silica fume had a small particlesize and the surface of silica fume would absorb a lot ofwater reducers [11] Under the action of polycarboxylatessilica fume acted as an ultrafine particle to disperse cementparticles releasing more free water [12 13] For ordinaryconcrete the amount of silica fume was usually less than10 For high strength and durability concrete it wasnecessary to increase the amount of silica fume to 10 inorder to maintain a certain slump under the action of

polycarboxylate [14] )e amount of silica fume in UHPCwas usually less than 15 [15] It was found that if theamount of silica fume was over 25 it would make UHPCvery thick and reduce the flowability of UHPC Meanwhilethe flowability of UHPC also decreased when the amount ofslag exceeded 25 since the specific surface area of slag wassmaller than that of cement more free water was needed toachieve the same flowability )erefore silica fume and slagsignificantly affected the flowability of UHPC

33 Strength In the cementitious system of cement silicafume slag and fly ash UHPCwas prepared by usingM-PCEand Sika polycarboxylates respectively )e strength of pre-pared UHPC is shown in Table 5 )e quaternion orthogonalanalysis of strength of UHPC is shown in Figures 6 and 7

According to the UHPC strength test results in Table 5the relationship between the 28-day strength Y of UHPCwith M-PCE and Sika used as polycarboxylate and thecomposition of cementing materials was established asshown in the following equation

Y(MminusPCE) 1074X1 + 1164X2 + 2192X3 minus 3006X4

+ 00044X1X2 minus 001912X1X3 + 006038X1X4

minus 16665X2X3 + 01011X2X4 + 07579X3X4

+ 00034705X1X2X3 minus 0000729X1X2X4

minus 00008859X1X3X4 minus 00067229X2X3X4

minus 0000098075X1X2X3X4

(6)

Y(Sika) 109X1 + 109X2 + 207X3 minus 359X4

+ 00026X1X2 minus 00138X1X3 + 0072X1X4minus 00808X2X3 + 02081X2X4 + 01396X3X4+ 0001438X1X2X3 minus 0003189X1X2X4minus 00023989X1X3X4 minus 0008072X2X3X4minus 000014719X1X2X3X4

(7)

From formulas (6)-(7) it could be seen that eitherM-PCE or Sika was used and the effect of silicate cement onthe strength of UHPC (28 d) was almost the same that is thecoefficients on X1 were almost the same In addition thecoefficients of X4 X1X3 X2X3 X1X2X3 X1X2X3 X1X2X4X1X3X4 X2X3X4 X1X2X3X4 X1X2X3X4 X1X2X3X4 andX1X2X3X4 were found to be negative indicating that theseincorporation methods had a negative synergistic effect onthe strength of UHPC (28 d) Compared with the incor-poration of silicate cement and silica fume the incorpora-tion of silicate cement and fly ash had a positive influence onthe strength of UHPC (28 d)

It could be seen from Table 5 that there was little differencein the compressive strength of HUPC prepared with M-PCEand that prepared with Sika )e polyorganosiloxane group inM-PCE mother liquor could promote hydration Although

Table 2 Binder compositions of UHPC

No Cement () Silica fume () Slag () Fly ash ()N1 100 0 0 0N2 50 50 0 0N3 50 0 50 0N4 50 0 0 50N5 75 25 0 0N6 75 0 25 0N7 75 0 0 25N8 50 25 25 0N9 50 25 0 25N10 50 0 25 25N11 666 167 167 0N12 666 167 0 167N13 666 0 167 167N14 50 167 167 167N15 625 125 125 125

6 Advances in Civil Engineering

Table 3 Water reduction rate of polycarboxylate in mortar

Polycarboxylate Cement (g) Sand (g) Water (M1) (g) Flowability Water-reducing rate ()M-PCE 450 1350 1286 180mm 183mm 373Sika 450 1350 1335 180mm 185mm 348

Table 4 Initial flowability of UHPC with different compositions (mm)

PolycarboxylateNumber

N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8 N9 N10 N11 N12 N13 N14 N15M-PCE 165 153 125 192 170 172 195 193 235 170 165 146 155 178 102Sika 170 150 132 210 200 190 183 205 238 156 135 142 140 160 110

00

190

160

140150

150 170160

180

170

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

Silica fumeFl

y ash

220

150200

190

170

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Slag

Fly a

sh

135

140

185

145

150

175

155155

165

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00

01

02

03

04

05221

157

205

173

181

189

00

02

04

06

08

10

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 4 Flowability of UHPC with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (M-PCE)

Advances in Civil Engineering 7

Silica fumeSla

g

150180

190

150

180

170

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

170

220

150200

170

190

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Slag

Fly a

sh

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

145

145

185

175

175

155

165

135

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

195

225

205195

165

185

00 02 04 06 08 10

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 5 Flowability of UHPC with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (Sika)

Table 5 Compressive strength of UHPC

NumberCompressive strength (MPa)

M-PCE Sika3 d 28 d 3 d 28 d

N1 716 1074 748 1088N2 745 1009 821 1154N3 700 1155 837 1233N4 667 1163 644 1188N5 712 1014 804 1137N6 709 995 783 1074N7 647 1186 848 1269N8 769 1125 724 1138N9 810 1174 869 1156N10 793 1046 815 1015N11 776 1194 893 1169N12 800 1174 800 1125N13 858 1085 838 1062N14 827 1103 847 1179N15 864 1187 836 1091

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

102

102

106

118

104

104

116

114

106

112

108

110

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

104

108

118

110

110

112116114

102

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

118116

104

114

112

108

Slag

Fly a

sh

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

108116

109

112108

109

112

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 6 Compressive strength of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

119118

116

109

117

116 111

113

115

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

124123

113

122 121

120119118

117

114

115

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Figure 7 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

Sika was relatively simple in the molecular structure it couldalso be compatible with silicate cement and promote hydrationdue to its advanced compounding process As the silica fumecontent increased the early compressive strength of UHPCgradually increased however when silica fume contentexceeded 25 this trend slowed low Due to the high poz-zolanic activity and microaggregate effect of silica fume silicafume could improve the compressive strength of UHPCAmorphous SiO2 in silica fume reacts with calcium hydroxideproduced by cement hydration to form hydrated calciumsilicate (C-S-H) which could improve the early strength ofUHPC [16 17] It could be seen from Table 5 that when theamount of silica fume was greater than 25 the compressivestrength of UHPC (28d) increased slightly with the increase inthe amount of silica fume In addition it was found that theaddition of slag reduced the compressive strength of UHPC(3d) but increased the strength of UHPC (28h) )is wasbecause when silica fume and slag were mixed in a properproportion a suitable ratio of calcium to silicon (CS) could beproduced Previous studies had shown that in order to makeconcrete stronger the optimal composition of cementingmaterials depends on the fineness of siliceous materials and theratio of calcium to silicon [18] When the ratio of calcium tosilicon was 13 1 the strength of UHPC was greater than thatof silica fume [19]

34 Dry Shrinkage Under the cementation system of ce-ment-silica fume-slag-fly ash UHPC was prepared by usingM-PCE and Sika polycarboxylate respectively )e change indry shrinkage of UHPC for 28 d is shown in Figures 8 and 9

According to the 28-day dry shrinkage test results ofUHPC in Figures 8 and 9 the relationship between the 28-day dry shrinkage Y of UHPC prepared with M-PCE andSika as polycarboxylate and the composition of cementitiousmaterials was established as shown in the followingequation

Y(MminusPCE) 9X1 + 20X2 + 9X3 minus 8X4 minus 027X1X2

minus 006X1X3 + 017X1X4 + 072X2X3

+ 135X2X4 + 088X3X4 minus 00123X1X2X3

minus 00228X1X2X4 minus 0014X1X3X4

minus 08226X2X3X4 + 0015593X1X2X3X4

(8)

Y(Sika) 9X1 + 18X2 + 12X3 minus 15X4 minus 021X1X2

minus 001X1X3 minus 029X1X4 + 043X2X3+ 162X2X4 + 08896X3X4 minus 00071X1X2X3minus 00287X1X2X4 minus 00143X1X3X4minus 07467X2X3X4 + 0013826X1X2X3X4

(9)

From formulas (8)-(9) it could be seen that whenM-PCE and Sika were used silicate cement had the sameeffect on the drying shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) that is thecoefficients of X1 were the same In addition the coefficientsof X4 X1X2 X1X3 X1X2X3 X1X2X4 and X1X3X4 were allnegative indicating that the dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d)could be effectively reduced by only adding silicate cementand silica fume slag and fly ash

As could be seen from Figures 8 and 9 the dry shrinkagevalue of UHPC prepared byM-PCE was slightly greater thanthat of UHPC prepared by Sika Although the molecularstructure of M-PCE contained a large number of water-reducing groups (alcohol groups) it was the M-PCE mothersolution that was used in this experiment In contrast therewere still water-reducing groups in Sikarsquos molecular struc-ture which was more effective in reducing the surfacetension of pore solution [20])erefore the dry shrinkage ofUHPC prepared by Sika would be smaller than that ofUHPC prepared by M-PCE

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

126 122120

104

108

112

108

Slag

Fly a

sh

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

104

116

108 112

116

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 7 Compressive strength of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (Sika)

10 Advances in Civil Engineering

825

675800

800775

775700

725

750

2505 06 07 08 09 10

Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

855

755

805780

730

655

755730

680

705

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

850690

830

810790

710770

730750

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

800

625650

750

675700

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 8 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

770755

680

740740

710

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

7

750

625

775

725

750

700

725

650

675

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 9 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

)e incorporation of fly ash would refine the porestructure of mortar reduce the connectivity of pores andincrease the difficulty in water migration under dryingconditions which showed a positive effect on dryingshrinkage that is drying shrinkage would be greatly re-duced [21] )erefore it was found from Figures 8 and 9that the dry shrinkage of UHPC became much larger whensilica fume content was around 50 )is was because theeffect of silica fume on the drying shrinkage of UHPC wasmainly due to the volcanic ash effect Silica fume had highactivity and could react with the hydration productCa(OH)2 to form C-S-H gel which on the one hand notonly reduced the amount of flake crystal Ca(OH)2 andincreased the amount of C-S-H in cement but also on theother hand refines the pore size and improves the porestructure However C-S-H gel itself had a porous structureand would contract under dry conditions while Ca(OH)2was a crystal structure which generally would not contractAt the same time part of Ca(OH)2 was distributed in thevoid of C-S-H gel which had an inhibitory effect on itscontraction [22] )e pozzolanite reaction consumesCa(OH)2 in the cement which eliminates the restrictioneffect of Ca(OH)2 on C-S-H gel shrinkage )erefore itcould be deduced that the higher the reaction degree ofvolcanic ash the greater the drying shrinkage value of thecorresponding specimen)eoretically there was a positivecorrelation between the degree of ash reaction and thecontent of silica fume)erefore the incorporation of silicafume could enhance the dry shrinkage of UHPC

35 Autogenous Shrinkage Under the cementitious systemof cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash UHPC was prepared byusing M-PCE and Sika respectively and the autogenousshrinkage changes in prepared UHPC are shown in Fig-ures 10 and 11

According to the 3-day autogenous shrinkage test resultsof UHPC in Figures 10 and 11 the relation between 3-dayautogenous shrinkage Y of UHPCwith eitherM-PCE or Sikaand the composition of cementation material was estab-lished as shown in the following equation

Y(MminusPCE) 9X1 + 3X2 + 48X3 minus 61X4 + 038X1X2

minus 032X1X3 + 121X1X4 minus 4X2X3

minus 269X2X4 minus 007X3X4 + 006793X1X2X3

+ 005428X1X2X4 + 00098X1X3X4

+ 06089X2X3X4 minus 0010649X1X2X3X4

(10)

Y(Sika) 9X1 + 11X2 + 27X3 minus 78X4 + 081X1X2

minus 027X1X3 + 1579X1X4 minus 019X2X3minus 01X2X4 minus 201X3X4 + 00101X1X2X3+ 00108X1X2X4 + 00435X1X3X4+ 06575X2X3X4 minus 001182X1X2X3X4

(11)

From formulas (10)-(11) it could be seen that silicatecement had the same effect on the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC when either M-PCE or Sika was used that is thecoefficients of X1 were the same In addition the coeffi-cients of X4 X1X3 X2X3 X2X4 X3X4 and X1X2X3X4were all negative indicating the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC could be effectively reduced by either adding flyash silicate cement and slag silica fume and slag silicafume and fly ash or adding the four kinds of cementingmaterials )e other admixture measures all could in-crease the self-contraction of UHPC As could be seenfrom Figures 10 and 11 the influence of M-PCE on UHPCself-shrinking was almost the same as that of Sika onUHPC From the molecular perspective their molecular

790775

760745

700

730

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

550

500

750

550

650

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 9 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (Sika)

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

19001100

1500

1700

1400

16001500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1600 1100

1200

1600

1300

1300

1400

1400

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

1900

1000

1700

1200

1600

1400

1500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1800

1200

1700

13001400

1600

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 10 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

1900 1200

1400

1300

1800

1400

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1400

1500

1400

1800

1500

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 11 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

structure contains a large number of polyethylene glycolreduction groups which could effectively reduce thesurface tension of pore solution )erefore the autoge-nous shrinkage value of UHPC prepared by pure silicatecement was small

In addition we found that adding silica fume alonewould increase the autogenous shrinkage of UHPC whichwas consistent with the results in [23] )e main reasonscould be listed as follows (1) silica fume fineness waslarge and its unique filling effect could refine the porestructure of cement-based materials (2) Ca(OH)2 gen-erated in the early stage was not well grown and very smallin particle size After the addition of silica fume it waseasy to react quickly with silica fume to produce calciumsilicate hydrate with low CS ratio making the interfacebetween the unhydrated cement particles and calciumsilicate hydrate become more compact and uniform [24](3) when the content of silica fume was high the excesssilica fume could continue to react with the generated C-S-H to produce the outer layer of calcium silicate hydratewith a lower CS ratio making the structure of the ce-ment-based materials doped with silica fume more dense[25] )erefore silica fume could reduce the porosity andaverage pore size of UHPC Since the value of autogenousshrinkage was related to the capillary pressure of cement-based materials the capillary pressure was mainly relatedto its diameter )e greater the silica fume content thesmaller the capillary diameter the greater the capillarypressure the greater the value of autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC

Because the chemical shrinkage induced by pozzolanicreaction of slag was greater than that induced by cementhydration it was found that the effect of single dosage of slagon UHPCrsquos autogenous shrinkage was great Meanwhile theactivity and hydration degree of slag was greater than that ofsilicate cement which greatly promoted the growth ofcapillary negative pressure and increased the action area[26 27]

4 Conclusions

In this study pectiniform polycarboxylate was synthesized atroom temperature and its applications in UHPC includingflowability strength drying shrinkage and autogenousshrinkage were investigated )e following conclusionscould be obtained based on the above experimental resultsand discussion

(1) )e polysiloxane in molecular structure had bettercompatibility with silicate cement When eitherM-PCE or Sika was used the positive influence ofsilicate cement on the flowability of UHPC was thesame It is worth noting that the use of three or morecementitious materials had a negative synergisticeffect on the flowability of UHPC although this effectwas weak

(2) )ere was little difference in compressive strength ofHUPC prepared by M-PCE and Sika )e incor-poration of cement with silica fume and that ofcement with fly ash both had a positive effect on the28-day strength of UHPC

(3) )e incorporation of fly ash could effectively reducethe drying shrinkage and autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC In terms of dry shrinkage the dosage of silicafume and fly ash could effectively reduce the 28-daydry shrinkage of UHPC Other incorporationmethods would all increase the 28-day dry shrinkageof UHPC to varying degrees From the perspective ofautogenous shrinkage the incorporation of silicafume and slag that of silica fume and fly ash or thatof all four cementing materials could all effectivelyreduce the 3-day autogenous shrinkage of UHPC

Data Availability

All the data used during the study are available from thecorresponding author by request

1300

1500

14001800

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1500

1300

1600

14001500

1800

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 11 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (Sika)

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

Conflicts of Interest

)e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest

Authorsrsquo Contributions

Shuncheng Xiang conceptualized the study preparedmethodology investigated the study performed datacuration did formal analysis wrote the original draft andrevised the manuscript Yingli Gao administrated theproject obtained funding acquisition and supervised thestudy

Acknowledgments

)e authors gratefully acknowledge the financial supportfrom the National Natural Science Foundation of China(General Program 51978080) Civil Aviation Administrationof China (U1833127) Hunan Province Natural ScienceFoundation (2018JJ4016) Key Scientific Research Projects ofHunan Education Department (18A129) National Key RampDProgram of China (Grant number 2018YFB1600100) andOpen Fund (Grant number kfj190503) of Key Laboratory ofSpecial Environment Road Engineering of Hunan Province(Changsha University of Science amp Technology)

References

[1] P J Andersen D M Roy J M Gaidis and WR Grace andCompany ldquo)e effects of adsorption of superplasticizers onthe surface of cementrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 17no 5 pp 805ndash813 1987

[2] C-Z Li N-Q Feng Y-D Li and R-J Chen ldquoEffects ofpolyethlene oxide chains on the performance of poly-carboxylate-type water-reducersrdquo Cement and Concrete Re-search vol 35 no 5 pp 867ndash873 2005

[3] B He Y Gao L Qu K Duan W Zhou and G PeildquoCharacteristics analysis of self-luminescent cement-basedcomposite materials with self-cleaning effectrdquo Journal ofCleaner Production vol 225 pp 1169ndash1183 2019

[4] Y Gao L Qu B He K Dai Z Fang and R Zhu ldquoStudy oneffectiveness of anti-icing and deicing performance of super-hydrophobic asphalt concreterdquo Construction and BuildingMaterials vol 191 pp 270ndash280 2018

[5] C J Shi ldquoRecent development of PC superplasticizersrdquo inProceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on MixDesign Performance and Use of SCC pp 16ndash25 BeijingChina June 2009

[6] K R Duan Y L Gao H Yao et al ldquoComparison of per-formances of early aged pre-vibrated cement-stabilizedmacadam formed by different compactionsrdquo Constructionand Building Materials vol 239 2020

[7] P C Aitcin ldquo)e durability characteristics of high perfor-mance con-crete reviewrdquo Cement and Concrete Compositesvol 25 pp 409ndash420 2003

[8] M Jones R Dhir and J Gill ldquoConcrete surface treatmenteffect of exposure temperature on chloride diffusion resis-tancerdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 1pp 197ndash208 1995

[9] M Levi C Ferro D Regazzoli G Dotelli and A Lopresti ldquoComparative evaluation method of polymer sur-face treatments applied on high performance concreterdquo

Journal of Materials Science vol 37 no 22 pp 4881ndash48882002

[10] J L )ompson M R Silsbee P M Gill and B E ScheetzldquoCharacterization of silicate sealers on concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 27 no 10 pp 1561ndash1567 1997

[11] D A Kagi and K B Ren ldquoReduction of water absorption insilicate treated concrete by post-treatment with cationicsurfactantsrdquo Building and Environment vol 30 no 2pp 237ndash243 1995

[12] R P Khatri V Sirivivatnanon and W Gross ldquoEffect ofdifferent supplementary cementitious materials on mechan-ical properties of high performance concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 25 no 1 pp 209ndash220 1995

[13] B K Ganesh and P P V Surya ldquoEfficiency of silica fume inconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 6pp 1273ndash1283 1995

[14] R Duval and E H Kadri ldquoInfluence of silica fume on theworkability and the compressive strength of high-perfor-mance concretesrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 28no 4 pp 533ndash547 1998

[15] K H Khayat and P C Aitcin ldquoSilica fume a unique-supplementary cementitious materialrdquo in Mineral Admix-turesin Cement and Concrete S N Ghosh Ed pp 227ndash265ABI Books Private Limited New Delhi India 1993

[16] M Mazloom A A Ramezanianpour and J J Brooks ldquoEffectof silica fume on mechanical properties of high-strengthconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Composites vol 26 no 4pp 347ndash357 2004

[17] T K Erdem and O Kırca ldquoUse of binary and ternary blendsin high strength concreterdquo Construction and Building Ma-terials vol 22 no 7 pp 1477ndash1483 2008

[18] A Elahi P A M Basheer S V Nanukuttan andQ U Z Khan ldquoMechanical and durability properties of highperformance concretes containing supplementary cementi-tious materialsrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 24no 3 pp 292ndash299 2010

[19] Y Dang N Xie A Kessel E McVey A Pace and X ShildquoAccelerated laboratory evaluation of surface treatments forprotecting concrete bridge decks from salt scalingrdquo Con-struction and Building Materials vol 55 pp 128ndash135 2014

[20] J Zhang L Ding F Li and J Peng ldquoRecycled aggregates fromconstruction and demolition wastes as alternative fillingmaterials for highway subgrades in Chinardquo Journal of CleanerProduction vol 255 p 120223 2020

[21] J Zhang F Gu and Y Q Zhang ldquoUse of building-relatedconstruction and demolition wastes in highway embankmentlaboratory and field evaluationsrdquo Journal of Cleaner Pro-duction vol 230 pp 1051ndash1060 2019

[22] H Zhang ldquo)e effect of curing conditions on compressivestrength of ultra high strength concrete with high volumemineral admixturesrdquo Building and Environment vol 42pp 2083ndash2089 2007

[23] S-Y Hong and F P Glasser ldquoPhase relations in the CaO-SiO2-H2O system to 200degC at saturated steam pressurerdquoCement and Concrete Research vol 34 no 9 pp 1529ndash15342004

[24] M H Zhang C T Tam and M P Leow ldquoEffect of water-to-cementitious materials ratio and silica fume on the autoge-nous shrinkage of concreterdquo Cement and Concrete Researchvol 33 no 10 pp 1687ndash1694 2003

[25] H Li Z Yi and Y Xie ldquoProgress of silane impregnatingsurface treatment technology of concrete structurerdquoMaterialsReview vol 26 no 3 pp 120ndash125 2012

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

[26] Z D Rong W Sun H J Xiao and W Wang ldquoEffect of silicafume and fly ash on hydration and microstructure evolutionof cement based composites at low water-binder ratiosrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 51 pp 446ndash4502014

[27] M H F Medeiros and P Helene ldquoSurface treatment ofreinforced concrete in marine environment influence onchloride diffusion coefficient and capillary water absorptionrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 23 no 3pp 1476ndash1484 2009

16 Advances in Civil Engineering

groups of solutions (group A and group B) were prepared forthe next step

Group A 108 g AA 0384 g thioglycolic acid and 20 gdeionized waterGroup B 34 g Vc 06 g ammonium persulfate and 20 gdeionized water

With using a peristaltic pump the two groups of so-lutions were added dropwise into the flask at 2mlminwithin 15 h)e solution was heated and incubated for 3 h at40degC before adding NaOH to adjust the pH to 6-7 to preparePCE solution )e chemical structure of M-PCE is shown inFigure 3

24 Water-Reducing Rate Test of Cement MortarAccording to GBT8077-2012 ldquoConcrete Admixture Ho-mogeneity Test Methodrdquo the mortar water-reducing rate ofpolycarboxylate was tested after jumping for 30 consecutivebeats based on the following formula

water minus reducing rate M0 minus M1

M0times 100 (1)

where M0 represents the water consumption when theflowability of mortar was 180mmplusmn 5mm andM1 representsthe water consumption when the flowability of admixturemortar reached 180mmplusmn 5mm

25 Mix Rate of UHPC Based on quadrature design thecontent of polycarboxylate was 2 of the binder component(mass ratio) the water-binder ratio of ultrahigh strengthconcrete was 018 and the sand-binder ratio was 10 )emix ratio is shown in Table 2

Quaternion orthogonal design was adopted in this workMatlab software was used for calculation if the mixture wascomposed of four components X1 X2 X3 and X4 then

Y β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + β4X4 + β12X1X2

+ β13X1X3 + β14X1X4 + β23X2X3 + β24X2X4

+ β34X3X4 + β123X1X2X3 + β124X1X2X4

+ β134X1X3X4 + β234X2X3X4 + β1234X1X2X3X4

(2)

where Y was the dependent variable which could be anystructure or performance characteristics of cement-basedmaterials I was a coefficient and X1 X2 X3 and X4 werefour components Fifteen orthogonal designs were used todesign the compos7ition of cementitious materials andthen the relation between the composition of cementitiousmaterials and the performance of ultrahigh strength con-crete was established

26 Flowability )e sand with a particle size below 236mmwas selected the cementation material mass was 200 g thesand-binder ratio was 1 1 the water-binder ratio was 018and the mixing amount of polycarboxylate mother liquor

was 2)emortar flowability was tested when it jumped 30times on the table

27 Strength In the test of cement mortar a group of40mmtimes 40mmtimes 160mm test bodies was formed by usingfine sand with particle size below 236mm with the sand-binder ratio of 1 1 and the flowability of cement mortarmaintained above 140mm )e test mold was a triple moldand the curing time was 24 hours the temperature of thecuring box with mold curing was kept at 20degCplusmn 1degC and therelative humidity was not lower than 90)en themold wasremoved and put into the steam curing chamber the dryingchamber temperature was 20degCplusmn 3degC )e strength of mortarat the 1st day 3rd day 7th day 14th day and 28th day wasmeasured

28 Dry Shrinkage According to the provisions of JCT603-2004 ldquoDry Shrinkage Test Method of Cement Mortarrdquo a setof 25mmtimes 25mmtimes 280mm test bodies was prepared Aftertesting initial reading the test body was put into the dryingchamber the drying chamber temperature was 20degCplusmn 3degCthe relative humidity was 50plusmn 4 and then the length oftest body at the 1st day 3rd day 7th day 14th day 21th day28th day 56th day and 90th day was measured

)e results were calculated as follows

Sn L0 minus L28( 1113857 times 100

280 (3)

where Sn is the dry shrinkage rate of cement mortar test bodyat the n-th day percentage () L0 is the initial reading mmL28 is the measured reading at the 28th day mm and 280 isthe effective length mm

29 Autogenous Shrinkage )e autogenous shrinkage ofmortar in self-compacting cement mortar was measured byjointly using bellow and noncontact probe )e inner di-ameter of the bellow was 20mm and the length range was340plusmn 5mm which could transform the volume deformationof the flowing mortar into the length deformation )eflowability of cement mortar was kept above 140mm andthe autogenous shrinkage change of cement mortar wascontinuously measured and recorded within 72 hours aftercasting

3 Results and Discussion

31MortarWater-ReducingRate )ewater consumption ofbenchmark mortar without using polycarboxylate was2050 g After jumping 30 times the flowability was 186mmand 175m with an average of about 180mm )e experi-mental results are shown in Table 3

It could be seen from the above results that the waterreduction rate of M-PCE in mortar was not much differentfrom that of Sika From the perspective of molecularstructure Sikarsquos dispersion groups were mainly long-chainalkyl monomers and its dispersion principle was mainlyelectrostatic repulsion and steric hindrance effect In

4 Advances in Civil Engineering

contrast M-PCErsquos dispersion ability was promoted by thestrong chemical bond caused by siloxane groups in M-PCEand silicate phase [7] In addition M-PCE had longer sidechains than PCE so it had better steric hindrance [8] andexcellent dispersion in cement Levi et al [9] obtained asimilar conclusion by testing the effect of three types ofsilane (triethoxy silane (TEOS) 3-aminopropyl triethoxysilane (APTES) and N-2-aminoethyl-3-aminopropyl tri-methoxy silane (AEAPTMS)) on mobility )e resultsshowed that AEAPTMS had the best dispersion in freshcement paste )e main reason was that the siloxane groupin the polyurethane side chain produced by alkoxy hydro-lysis of silane molecules acted as an anchoring group on thecement surface resulting in full adsorption of silane mol-ecules on the cement particle and siloxane chain in a certainway exerted the steric effect between the cement particles

resulting in the disperse effect of cement )e anchoringcapacity of the siloxane group on cement or hydrationproducts had been demonstrated by the enhanced adsorp-tion behavior of the silane-modified polycarboxylate incement [10]

32 Flowability )e flowability of UHPC with the ce-mentitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash isshown in Table 4 )e quaternion orthogonal analysis isshown in Figures 4 and 5

According to the UHPC flowability test results in Ta-ble 4 the relationship between the initial flowability Y ofUHPC with M-PCE or Sika used as polycarboxylate and thecomposition of cementing material was established asshown in the following equation

CH2 CH

COOH

HSCH2COOH NaOH OH2

CH2

CH2

O

H

a

NH

C

HN

R4

HN

C

HN

H2C

H2C

O

O

m

NH2

H2C

H2C

NH2

C CH

CH3

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH3

O

O

CH3

HC C CH CH2CH2

HC CH2

HC

ed f g

C

O

O

H

a

CH3

C

O

O

C

O

C O

ONa

b

CH2HC

h

O

CH2 CH2

CH2 CH2

CH2

CH3

CH2

R4

O

C O

ONa

C O

NH

C

NH

HN

C

HN

H2C

H2C

O

O

mNH2

Figure 3 Chemical structure of synthesized M-PCE

Advances in Civil Engineering 5

Y(MminusPCE) 17X1 + 05X2 + 13X3 + 56X4 + 0018X1X2

+ 0043X1X3 + 0113X1X4 + 0341X2X3

+ 1009X2X4 + 056X3X4 minus 000509X1X2X3

minus 001644X1X2X4 minus 000909X1X3X4

minus 006326X2X3X4 minus 00014717X1X2X3X4

(4)

Y(Sika) 17X1 + 19X2 + 218X3 + 437X4 + 0064X1X2

+ 00624X1X3 + 00878X1X4 + 09581X2X3+ 11522X2X4 + 06354X3X4 minus 0017113X1X2X3minus 019207X1X2X4 minus 0011209X1X3X4minus 0023754X2X3X4 minus 00019255X1X2X3X4

(5)

According to formulas (4)-(5) the influence of silicatecement on the flowability of UHPC with M-PCE or Sika wasthe same )e values of β123 β124 β134 β234 and β1234 wereall negative indicating that the use of three or more ce-mentitious materials had a negative synergistic effect on theflowability of UHPC although this effect was very weak Onthe contrary the remaining parameters were all positiveindicating that the use of one or two cementitious materialsalone had some positive effect on the flowability of UHPC

As could be seen from Table 4 the flowability of UHPCdecreased as the amount of silica fume increased from 0 to50)is was due to that the silica fume had a small particlesize and the surface of silica fume would absorb a lot ofwater reducers [11] Under the action of polycarboxylatessilica fume acted as an ultrafine particle to disperse cementparticles releasing more free water [12 13] For ordinaryconcrete the amount of silica fume was usually less than10 For high strength and durability concrete it wasnecessary to increase the amount of silica fume to 10 inorder to maintain a certain slump under the action of

polycarboxylate [14] )e amount of silica fume in UHPCwas usually less than 15 [15] It was found that if theamount of silica fume was over 25 it would make UHPCvery thick and reduce the flowability of UHPC Meanwhilethe flowability of UHPC also decreased when the amount ofslag exceeded 25 since the specific surface area of slag wassmaller than that of cement more free water was needed toachieve the same flowability )erefore silica fume and slagsignificantly affected the flowability of UHPC

33 Strength In the cementitious system of cement silicafume slag and fly ash UHPCwas prepared by usingM-PCEand Sika polycarboxylates respectively )e strength of pre-pared UHPC is shown in Table 5 )e quaternion orthogonalanalysis of strength of UHPC is shown in Figures 6 and 7

According to the UHPC strength test results in Table 5the relationship between the 28-day strength Y of UHPCwith M-PCE and Sika used as polycarboxylate and thecomposition of cementing materials was established asshown in the following equation

Y(MminusPCE) 1074X1 + 1164X2 + 2192X3 minus 3006X4

+ 00044X1X2 minus 001912X1X3 + 006038X1X4

minus 16665X2X3 + 01011X2X4 + 07579X3X4

+ 00034705X1X2X3 minus 0000729X1X2X4

minus 00008859X1X3X4 minus 00067229X2X3X4

minus 0000098075X1X2X3X4

(6)

Y(Sika) 109X1 + 109X2 + 207X3 minus 359X4

+ 00026X1X2 minus 00138X1X3 + 0072X1X4minus 00808X2X3 + 02081X2X4 + 01396X3X4+ 0001438X1X2X3 minus 0003189X1X2X4minus 00023989X1X3X4 minus 0008072X2X3X4minus 000014719X1X2X3X4

(7)

From formulas (6)-(7) it could be seen that eitherM-PCE or Sika was used and the effect of silicate cement onthe strength of UHPC (28 d) was almost the same that is thecoefficients on X1 were almost the same In addition thecoefficients of X4 X1X3 X2X3 X1X2X3 X1X2X3 X1X2X4X1X3X4 X2X3X4 X1X2X3X4 X1X2X3X4 X1X2X3X4 andX1X2X3X4 were found to be negative indicating that theseincorporation methods had a negative synergistic effect onthe strength of UHPC (28 d) Compared with the incor-poration of silicate cement and silica fume the incorpora-tion of silicate cement and fly ash had a positive influence onthe strength of UHPC (28 d)

It could be seen from Table 5 that there was little differencein the compressive strength of HUPC prepared with M-PCEand that prepared with Sika )e polyorganosiloxane group inM-PCE mother liquor could promote hydration Although

Table 2 Binder compositions of UHPC

No Cement () Silica fume () Slag () Fly ash ()N1 100 0 0 0N2 50 50 0 0N3 50 0 50 0N4 50 0 0 50N5 75 25 0 0N6 75 0 25 0N7 75 0 0 25N8 50 25 25 0N9 50 25 0 25N10 50 0 25 25N11 666 167 167 0N12 666 167 0 167N13 666 0 167 167N14 50 167 167 167N15 625 125 125 125

6 Advances in Civil Engineering

Table 3 Water reduction rate of polycarboxylate in mortar

Polycarboxylate Cement (g) Sand (g) Water (M1) (g) Flowability Water-reducing rate ()M-PCE 450 1350 1286 180mm 183mm 373Sika 450 1350 1335 180mm 185mm 348

Table 4 Initial flowability of UHPC with different compositions (mm)

PolycarboxylateNumber

N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8 N9 N10 N11 N12 N13 N14 N15M-PCE 165 153 125 192 170 172 195 193 235 170 165 146 155 178 102Sika 170 150 132 210 200 190 183 205 238 156 135 142 140 160 110

00

190

160

140150

150 170160

180

170

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

Silica fumeFl

y ash

220

150200

190

170

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Slag

Fly a

sh

135

140

185

145

150

175

155155

165

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00

01

02

03

04

05221

157

205

173

181

189

00

02

04

06

08

10

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 4 Flowability of UHPC with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (M-PCE)

Advances in Civil Engineering 7

Silica fumeSla

g

150180

190

150

180

170

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

170

220

150200

170

190

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Slag

Fly a

sh

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

145

145

185

175

175

155

165

135

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

195

225

205195

165

185

00 02 04 06 08 10

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 5 Flowability of UHPC with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (Sika)

Table 5 Compressive strength of UHPC

NumberCompressive strength (MPa)

M-PCE Sika3 d 28 d 3 d 28 d

N1 716 1074 748 1088N2 745 1009 821 1154N3 700 1155 837 1233N4 667 1163 644 1188N5 712 1014 804 1137N6 709 995 783 1074N7 647 1186 848 1269N8 769 1125 724 1138N9 810 1174 869 1156N10 793 1046 815 1015N11 776 1194 893 1169N12 800 1174 800 1125N13 858 1085 838 1062N14 827 1103 847 1179N15 864 1187 836 1091

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

102

102

106

118

104

104

116

114

106

112

108

110

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

104

108

118

110

110

112116114

102

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

118116

104

114

112

108

Slag

Fly a

sh

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

108116

109

112108

109

112

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 6 Compressive strength of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

119118

116

109

117

116 111

113

115

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

124123

113

122 121

120119118

117

114

115

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Figure 7 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

Sika was relatively simple in the molecular structure it couldalso be compatible with silicate cement and promote hydrationdue to its advanced compounding process As the silica fumecontent increased the early compressive strength of UHPCgradually increased however when silica fume contentexceeded 25 this trend slowed low Due to the high poz-zolanic activity and microaggregate effect of silica fume silicafume could improve the compressive strength of UHPCAmorphous SiO2 in silica fume reacts with calcium hydroxideproduced by cement hydration to form hydrated calciumsilicate (C-S-H) which could improve the early strength ofUHPC [16 17] It could be seen from Table 5 that when theamount of silica fume was greater than 25 the compressivestrength of UHPC (28d) increased slightly with the increase inthe amount of silica fume In addition it was found that theaddition of slag reduced the compressive strength of UHPC(3d) but increased the strength of UHPC (28h) )is wasbecause when silica fume and slag were mixed in a properproportion a suitable ratio of calcium to silicon (CS) could beproduced Previous studies had shown that in order to makeconcrete stronger the optimal composition of cementingmaterials depends on the fineness of siliceous materials and theratio of calcium to silicon [18] When the ratio of calcium tosilicon was 13 1 the strength of UHPC was greater than thatof silica fume [19]

34 Dry Shrinkage Under the cementation system of ce-ment-silica fume-slag-fly ash UHPC was prepared by usingM-PCE and Sika polycarboxylate respectively )e change indry shrinkage of UHPC for 28 d is shown in Figures 8 and 9

According to the 28-day dry shrinkage test results ofUHPC in Figures 8 and 9 the relationship between the 28-day dry shrinkage Y of UHPC prepared with M-PCE andSika as polycarboxylate and the composition of cementitiousmaterials was established as shown in the followingequation

Y(MminusPCE) 9X1 + 20X2 + 9X3 minus 8X4 minus 027X1X2

minus 006X1X3 + 017X1X4 + 072X2X3

+ 135X2X4 + 088X3X4 minus 00123X1X2X3

minus 00228X1X2X4 minus 0014X1X3X4

minus 08226X2X3X4 + 0015593X1X2X3X4

(8)

Y(Sika) 9X1 + 18X2 + 12X3 minus 15X4 minus 021X1X2

minus 001X1X3 minus 029X1X4 + 043X2X3+ 162X2X4 + 08896X3X4 minus 00071X1X2X3minus 00287X1X2X4 minus 00143X1X3X4minus 07467X2X3X4 + 0013826X1X2X3X4

(9)

From formulas (8)-(9) it could be seen that whenM-PCE and Sika were used silicate cement had the sameeffect on the drying shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) that is thecoefficients of X1 were the same In addition the coefficientsof X4 X1X2 X1X3 X1X2X3 X1X2X4 and X1X3X4 were allnegative indicating that the dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d)could be effectively reduced by only adding silicate cementand silica fume slag and fly ash

As could be seen from Figures 8 and 9 the dry shrinkagevalue of UHPC prepared byM-PCE was slightly greater thanthat of UHPC prepared by Sika Although the molecularstructure of M-PCE contained a large number of water-reducing groups (alcohol groups) it was the M-PCE mothersolution that was used in this experiment In contrast therewere still water-reducing groups in Sikarsquos molecular struc-ture which was more effective in reducing the surfacetension of pore solution [20])erefore the dry shrinkage ofUHPC prepared by Sika would be smaller than that ofUHPC prepared by M-PCE

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

126 122120

104

108

112

108

Slag

Fly a

sh

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

104

116

108 112

116

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 7 Compressive strength of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (Sika)

10 Advances in Civil Engineering

825

675800

800775

775700

725

750

2505 06 07 08 09 10

Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

855

755

805780

730

655

755730

680

705

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

850690

830

810790

710770

730750

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

800

625650

750

675700

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 8 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

770755

680

740740

710

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

7

750

625

775

725

750

700

725

650

675

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 9 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

)e incorporation of fly ash would refine the porestructure of mortar reduce the connectivity of pores andincrease the difficulty in water migration under dryingconditions which showed a positive effect on dryingshrinkage that is drying shrinkage would be greatly re-duced [21] )erefore it was found from Figures 8 and 9that the dry shrinkage of UHPC became much larger whensilica fume content was around 50 )is was because theeffect of silica fume on the drying shrinkage of UHPC wasmainly due to the volcanic ash effect Silica fume had highactivity and could react with the hydration productCa(OH)2 to form C-S-H gel which on the one hand notonly reduced the amount of flake crystal Ca(OH)2 andincreased the amount of C-S-H in cement but also on theother hand refines the pore size and improves the porestructure However C-S-H gel itself had a porous structureand would contract under dry conditions while Ca(OH)2was a crystal structure which generally would not contractAt the same time part of Ca(OH)2 was distributed in thevoid of C-S-H gel which had an inhibitory effect on itscontraction [22] )e pozzolanite reaction consumesCa(OH)2 in the cement which eliminates the restrictioneffect of Ca(OH)2 on C-S-H gel shrinkage )erefore itcould be deduced that the higher the reaction degree ofvolcanic ash the greater the drying shrinkage value of thecorresponding specimen)eoretically there was a positivecorrelation between the degree of ash reaction and thecontent of silica fume)erefore the incorporation of silicafume could enhance the dry shrinkage of UHPC

35 Autogenous Shrinkage Under the cementitious systemof cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash UHPC was prepared byusing M-PCE and Sika respectively and the autogenousshrinkage changes in prepared UHPC are shown in Fig-ures 10 and 11

According to the 3-day autogenous shrinkage test resultsof UHPC in Figures 10 and 11 the relation between 3-dayautogenous shrinkage Y of UHPCwith eitherM-PCE or Sikaand the composition of cementation material was estab-lished as shown in the following equation

Y(MminusPCE) 9X1 + 3X2 + 48X3 minus 61X4 + 038X1X2

minus 032X1X3 + 121X1X4 minus 4X2X3

minus 269X2X4 minus 007X3X4 + 006793X1X2X3

+ 005428X1X2X4 + 00098X1X3X4

+ 06089X2X3X4 minus 0010649X1X2X3X4

(10)

Y(Sika) 9X1 + 11X2 + 27X3 minus 78X4 + 081X1X2

minus 027X1X3 + 1579X1X4 minus 019X2X3minus 01X2X4 minus 201X3X4 + 00101X1X2X3+ 00108X1X2X4 + 00435X1X3X4+ 06575X2X3X4 minus 001182X1X2X3X4

(11)

From formulas (10)-(11) it could be seen that silicatecement had the same effect on the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC when either M-PCE or Sika was used that is thecoefficients of X1 were the same In addition the coeffi-cients of X4 X1X3 X2X3 X2X4 X3X4 and X1X2X3X4were all negative indicating the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC could be effectively reduced by either adding flyash silicate cement and slag silica fume and slag silicafume and fly ash or adding the four kinds of cementingmaterials )e other admixture measures all could in-crease the self-contraction of UHPC As could be seenfrom Figures 10 and 11 the influence of M-PCE on UHPCself-shrinking was almost the same as that of Sika onUHPC From the molecular perspective their molecular

790775

760745

700

730

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

550

500

750

550

650

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 9 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (Sika)

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

19001100

1500

1700

1400

16001500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1600 1100

1200

1600

1300

1300

1400

1400

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

1900

1000

1700

1200

1600

1400

1500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1800

1200

1700

13001400

1600

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 10 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

1900 1200

1400

1300

1800

1400

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1400

1500

1400

1800

1500

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 11 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

structure contains a large number of polyethylene glycolreduction groups which could effectively reduce thesurface tension of pore solution )erefore the autoge-nous shrinkage value of UHPC prepared by pure silicatecement was small

In addition we found that adding silica fume alonewould increase the autogenous shrinkage of UHPC whichwas consistent with the results in [23] )e main reasonscould be listed as follows (1) silica fume fineness waslarge and its unique filling effect could refine the porestructure of cement-based materials (2) Ca(OH)2 gen-erated in the early stage was not well grown and very smallin particle size After the addition of silica fume it waseasy to react quickly with silica fume to produce calciumsilicate hydrate with low CS ratio making the interfacebetween the unhydrated cement particles and calciumsilicate hydrate become more compact and uniform [24](3) when the content of silica fume was high the excesssilica fume could continue to react with the generated C-S-H to produce the outer layer of calcium silicate hydratewith a lower CS ratio making the structure of the ce-ment-based materials doped with silica fume more dense[25] )erefore silica fume could reduce the porosity andaverage pore size of UHPC Since the value of autogenousshrinkage was related to the capillary pressure of cement-based materials the capillary pressure was mainly relatedto its diameter )e greater the silica fume content thesmaller the capillary diameter the greater the capillarypressure the greater the value of autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC

Because the chemical shrinkage induced by pozzolanicreaction of slag was greater than that induced by cementhydration it was found that the effect of single dosage of slagon UHPCrsquos autogenous shrinkage was great Meanwhile theactivity and hydration degree of slag was greater than that ofsilicate cement which greatly promoted the growth ofcapillary negative pressure and increased the action area[26 27]

4 Conclusions

In this study pectiniform polycarboxylate was synthesized atroom temperature and its applications in UHPC includingflowability strength drying shrinkage and autogenousshrinkage were investigated )e following conclusionscould be obtained based on the above experimental resultsand discussion

(1) )e polysiloxane in molecular structure had bettercompatibility with silicate cement When eitherM-PCE or Sika was used the positive influence ofsilicate cement on the flowability of UHPC was thesame It is worth noting that the use of three or morecementitious materials had a negative synergisticeffect on the flowability of UHPC although this effectwas weak

(2) )ere was little difference in compressive strength ofHUPC prepared by M-PCE and Sika )e incor-poration of cement with silica fume and that ofcement with fly ash both had a positive effect on the28-day strength of UHPC

(3) )e incorporation of fly ash could effectively reducethe drying shrinkage and autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC In terms of dry shrinkage the dosage of silicafume and fly ash could effectively reduce the 28-daydry shrinkage of UHPC Other incorporationmethods would all increase the 28-day dry shrinkageof UHPC to varying degrees From the perspective ofautogenous shrinkage the incorporation of silicafume and slag that of silica fume and fly ash or thatof all four cementing materials could all effectivelyreduce the 3-day autogenous shrinkage of UHPC

Data Availability

All the data used during the study are available from thecorresponding author by request

1300

1500

14001800

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1500

1300

1600

14001500

1800

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 11 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (Sika)

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

Conflicts of Interest

)e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest

Authorsrsquo Contributions

Shuncheng Xiang conceptualized the study preparedmethodology investigated the study performed datacuration did formal analysis wrote the original draft andrevised the manuscript Yingli Gao administrated theproject obtained funding acquisition and supervised thestudy

Acknowledgments

)e authors gratefully acknowledge the financial supportfrom the National Natural Science Foundation of China(General Program 51978080) Civil Aviation Administrationof China (U1833127) Hunan Province Natural ScienceFoundation (2018JJ4016) Key Scientific Research Projects ofHunan Education Department (18A129) National Key RampDProgram of China (Grant number 2018YFB1600100) andOpen Fund (Grant number kfj190503) of Key Laboratory ofSpecial Environment Road Engineering of Hunan Province(Changsha University of Science amp Technology)

References

[1] P J Andersen D M Roy J M Gaidis and WR Grace andCompany ldquo)e effects of adsorption of superplasticizers onthe surface of cementrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 17no 5 pp 805ndash813 1987

[2] C-Z Li N-Q Feng Y-D Li and R-J Chen ldquoEffects ofpolyethlene oxide chains on the performance of poly-carboxylate-type water-reducersrdquo Cement and Concrete Re-search vol 35 no 5 pp 867ndash873 2005

[3] B He Y Gao L Qu K Duan W Zhou and G PeildquoCharacteristics analysis of self-luminescent cement-basedcomposite materials with self-cleaning effectrdquo Journal ofCleaner Production vol 225 pp 1169ndash1183 2019

[4] Y Gao L Qu B He K Dai Z Fang and R Zhu ldquoStudy oneffectiveness of anti-icing and deicing performance of super-hydrophobic asphalt concreterdquo Construction and BuildingMaterials vol 191 pp 270ndash280 2018

[5] C J Shi ldquoRecent development of PC superplasticizersrdquo inProceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on MixDesign Performance and Use of SCC pp 16ndash25 BeijingChina June 2009

[6] K R Duan Y L Gao H Yao et al ldquoComparison of per-formances of early aged pre-vibrated cement-stabilizedmacadam formed by different compactionsrdquo Constructionand Building Materials vol 239 2020

[7] P C Aitcin ldquo)e durability characteristics of high perfor-mance con-crete reviewrdquo Cement and Concrete Compositesvol 25 pp 409ndash420 2003

[8] M Jones R Dhir and J Gill ldquoConcrete surface treatmenteffect of exposure temperature on chloride diffusion resis-tancerdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 1pp 197ndash208 1995

[9] M Levi C Ferro D Regazzoli G Dotelli and A Lopresti ldquoComparative evaluation method of polymer sur-face treatments applied on high performance concreterdquo

Journal of Materials Science vol 37 no 22 pp 4881ndash48882002

[10] J L )ompson M R Silsbee P M Gill and B E ScheetzldquoCharacterization of silicate sealers on concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 27 no 10 pp 1561ndash1567 1997

[11] D A Kagi and K B Ren ldquoReduction of water absorption insilicate treated concrete by post-treatment with cationicsurfactantsrdquo Building and Environment vol 30 no 2pp 237ndash243 1995

[12] R P Khatri V Sirivivatnanon and W Gross ldquoEffect ofdifferent supplementary cementitious materials on mechan-ical properties of high performance concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 25 no 1 pp 209ndash220 1995

[13] B K Ganesh and P P V Surya ldquoEfficiency of silica fume inconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 6pp 1273ndash1283 1995

[14] R Duval and E H Kadri ldquoInfluence of silica fume on theworkability and the compressive strength of high-perfor-mance concretesrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 28no 4 pp 533ndash547 1998

[15] K H Khayat and P C Aitcin ldquoSilica fume a unique-supplementary cementitious materialrdquo in Mineral Admix-turesin Cement and Concrete S N Ghosh Ed pp 227ndash265ABI Books Private Limited New Delhi India 1993

[16] M Mazloom A A Ramezanianpour and J J Brooks ldquoEffectof silica fume on mechanical properties of high-strengthconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Composites vol 26 no 4pp 347ndash357 2004

[17] T K Erdem and O Kırca ldquoUse of binary and ternary blendsin high strength concreterdquo Construction and Building Ma-terials vol 22 no 7 pp 1477ndash1483 2008

[18] A Elahi P A M Basheer S V Nanukuttan andQ U Z Khan ldquoMechanical and durability properties of highperformance concretes containing supplementary cementi-tious materialsrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 24no 3 pp 292ndash299 2010

[19] Y Dang N Xie A Kessel E McVey A Pace and X ShildquoAccelerated laboratory evaluation of surface treatments forprotecting concrete bridge decks from salt scalingrdquo Con-struction and Building Materials vol 55 pp 128ndash135 2014

[20] J Zhang L Ding F Li and J Peng ldquoRecycled aggregates fromconstruction and demolition wastes as alternative fillingmaterials for highway subgrades in Chinardquo Journal of CleanerProduction vol 255 p 120223 2020

[21] J Zhang F Gu and Y Q Zhang ldquoUse of building-relatedconstruction and demolition wastes in highway embankmentlaboratory and field evaluationsrdquo Journal of Cleaner Pro-duction vol 230 pp 1051ndash1060 2019

[22] H Zhang ldquo)e effect of curing conditions on compressivestrength of ultra high strength concrete with high volumemineral admixturesrdquo Building and Environment vol 42pp 2083ndash2089 2007

[23] S-Y Hong and F P Glasser ldquoPhase relations in the CaO-SiO2-H2O system to 200degC at saturated steam pressurerdquoCement and Concrete Research vol 34 no 9 pp 1529ndash15342004

[24] M H Zhang C T Tam and M P Leow ldquoEffect of water-to-cementitious materials ratio and silica fume on the autoge-nous shrinkage of concreterdquo Cement and Concrete Researchvol 33 no 10 pp 1687ndash1694 2003

[25] H Li Z Yi and Y Xie ldquoProgress of silane impregnatingsurface treatment technology of concrete structurerdquoMaterialsReview vol 26 no 3 pp 120ndash125 2012

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

[26] Z D Rong W Sun H J Xiao and W Wang ldquoEffect of silicafume and fly ash on hydration and microstructure evolutionof cement based composites at low water-binder ratiosrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 51 pp 446ndash4502014

[27] M H F Medeiros and P Helene ldquoSurface treatment ofreinforced concrete in marine environment influence onchloride diffusion coefficient and capillary water absorptionrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 23 no 3pp 1476ndash1484 2009

16 Advances in Civil Engineering

contrast M-PCErsquos dispersion ability was promoted by thestrong chemical bond caused by siloxane groups in M-PCEand silicate phase [7] In addition M-PCE had longer sidechains than PCE so it had better steric hindrance [8] andexcellent dispersion in cement Levi et al [9] obtained asimilar conclusion by testing the effect of three types ofsilane (triethoxy silane (TEOS) 3-aminopropyl triethoxysilane (APTES) and N-2-aminoethyl-3-aminopropyl tri-methoxy silane (AEAPTMS)) on mobility )e resultsshowed that AEAPTMS had the best dispersion in freshcement paste )e main reason was that the siloxane groupin the polyurethane side chain produced by alkoxy hydro-lysis of silane molecules acted as an anchoring group on thecement surface resulting in full adsorption of silane mol-ecules on the cement particle and siloxane chain in a certainway exerted the steric effect between the cement particles

resulting in the disperse effect of cement )e anchoringcapacity of the siloxane group on cement or hydrationproducts had been demonstrated by the enhanced adsorp-tion behavior of the silane-modified polycarboxylate incement [10]

32 Flowability )e flowability of UHPC with the ce-mentitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash isshown in Table 4 )e quaternion orthogonal analysis isshown in Figures 4 and 5

According to the UHPC flowability test results in Ta-ble 4 the relationship between the initial flowability Y ofUHPC with M-PCE or Sika used as polycarboxylate and thecomposition of cementing material was established asshown in the following equation

CH2 CH

COOH

HSCH2COOH NaOH OH2

CH2

CH2

O

H

a

NH

C

HN

R4

HN

C

HN

H2C

H2C

O

O

m

NH2

H2C

H2C

NH2

C CH

CH3

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH2

CH3

O

O

CH3

HC C CH CH2CH2

HC CH2

HC

ed f g

C

O

O

H

a

CH3

C

O

O

C

O

C O

ONa

b

CH2HC

h

O

CH2 CH2

CH2 CH2

CH2

CH3

CH2

R4

O

C O

ONa

C O

NH

C

NH

HN

C

HN

H2C

H2C

O

O

mNH2

Figure 3 Chemical structure of synthesized M-PCE

Advances in Civil Engineering 5

Y(MminusPCE) 17X1 + 05X2 + 13X3 + 56X4 + 0018X1X2

+ 0043X1X3 + 0113X1X4 + 0341X2X3

+ 1009X2X4 + 056X3X4 minus 000509X1X2X3

minus 001644X1X2X4 minus 000909X1X3X4

minus 006326X2X3X4 minus 00014717X1X2X3X4

(4)

Y(Sika) 17X1 + 19X2 + 218X3 + 437X4 + 0064X1X2

+ 00624X1X3 + 00878X1X4 + 09581X2X3+ 11522X2X4 + 06354X3X4 minus 0017113X1X2X3minus 019207X1X2X4 minus 0011209X1X3X4minus 0023754X2X3X4 minus 00019255X1X2X3X4

(5)

According to formulas (4)-(5) the influence of silicatecement on the flowability of UHPC with M-PCE or Sika wasthe same )e values of β123 β124 β134 β234 and β1234 wereall negative indicating that the use of three or more ce-mentitious materials had a negative synergistic effect on theflowability of UHPC although this effect was very weak Onthe contrary the remaining parameters were all positiveindicating that the use of one or two cementitious materialsalone had some positive effect on the flowability of UHPC

As could be seen from Table 4 the flowability of UHPCdecreased as the amount of silica fume increased from 0 to50)is was due to that the silica fume had a small particlesize and the surface of silica fume would absorb a lot ofwater reducers [11] Under the action of polycarboxylatessilica fume acted as an ultrafine particle to disperse cementparticles releasing more free water [12 13] For ordinaryconcrete the amount of silica fume was usually less than10 For high strength and durability concrete it wasnecessary to increase the amount of silica fume to 10 inorder to maintain a certain slump under the action of

polycarboxylate [14] )e amount of silica fume in UHPCwas usually less than 15 [15] It was found that if theamount of silica fume was over 25 it would make UHPCvery thick and reduce the flowability of UHPC Meanwhilethe flowability of UHPC also decreased when the amount ofslag exceeded 25 since the specific surface area of slag wassmaller than that of cement more free water was needed toachieve the same flowability )erefore silica fume and slagsignificantly affected the flowability of UHPC

33 Strength In the cementitious system of cement silicafume slag and fly ash UHPCwas prepared by usingM-PCEand Sika polycarboxylates respectively )e strength of pre-pared UHPC is shown in Table 5 )e quaternion orthogonalanalysis of strength of UHPC is shown in Figures 6 and 7

According to the UHPC strength test results in Table 5the relationship between the 28-day strength Y of UHPCwith M-PCE and Sika used as polycarboxylate and thecomposition of cementing materials was established asshown in the following equation

Y(MminusPCE) 1074X1 + 1164X2 + 2192X3 minus 3006X4

+ 00044X1X2 minus 001912X1X3 + 006038X1X4

minus 16665X2X3 + 01011X2X4 + 07579X3X4

+ 00034705X1X2X3 minus 0000729X1X2X4

minus 00008859X1X3X4 minus 00067229X2X3X4

minus 0000098075X1X2X3X4

(6)

Y(Sika) 109X1 + 109X2 + 207X3 minus 359X4

+ 00026X1X2 minus 00138X1X3 + 0072X1X4minus 00808X2X3 + 02081X2X4 + 01396X3X4+ 0001438X1X2X3 minus 0003189X1X2X4minus 00023989X1X3X4 minus 0008072X2X3X4minus 000014719X1X2X3X4

(7)

From formulas (6)-(7) it could be seen that eitherM-PCE or Sika was used and the effect of silicate cement onthe strength of UHPC (28 d) was almost the same that is thecoefficients on X1 were almost the same In addition thecoefficients of X4 X1X3 X2X3 X1X2X3 X1X2X3 X1X2X4X1X3X4 X2X3X4 X1X2X3X4 X1X2X3X4 X1X2X3X4 andX1X2X3X4 were found to be negative indicating that theseincorporation methods had a negative synergistic effect onthe strength of UHPC (28 d) Compared with the incor-poration of silicate cement and silica fume the incorpora-tion of silicate cement and fly ash had a positive influence onthe strength of UHPC (28 d)

It could be seen from Table 5 that there was little differencein the compressive strength of HUPC prepared with M-PCEand that prepared with Sika )e polyorganosiloxane group inM-PCE mother liquor could promote hydration Although

Table 2 Binder compositions of UHPC

No Cement () Silica fume () Slag () Fly ash ()N1 100 0 0 0N2 50 50 0 0N3 50 0 50 0N4 50 0 0 50N5 75 25 0 0N6 75 0 25 0N7 75 0 0 25N8 50 25 25 0N9 50 25 0 25N10 50 0 25 25N11 666 167 167 0N12 666 167 0 167N13 666 0 167 167N14 50 167 167 167N15 625 125 125 125

6 Advances in Civil Engineering

Table 3 Water reduction rate of polycarboxylate in mortar

Polycarboxylate Cement (g) Sand (g) Water (M1) (g) Flowability Water-reducing rate ()M-PCE 450 1350 1286 180mm 183mm 373Sika 450 1350 1335 180mm 185mm 348

Table 4 Initial flowability of UHPC with different compositions (mm)

PolycarboxylateNumber

N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8 N9 N10 N11 N12 N13 N14 N15M-PCE 165 153 125 192 170 172 195 193 235 170 165 146 155 178 102Sika 170 150 132 210 200 190 183 205 238 156 135 142 140 160 110

00

190

160

140150

150 170160

180

170

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

Silica fumeFl

y ash

220

150200

190

170

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Slag

Fly a

sh

135

140

185

145

150

175

155155

165

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00

01

02

03

04

05221

157

205

173

181

189

00

02

04

06

08

10

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 4 Flowability of UHPC with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (M-PCE)

Advances in Civil Engineering 7

Silica fumeSla

g

150180

190

150

180

170

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

170

220

150200

170

190

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Slag

Fly a

sh

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

145

145

185

175

175

155

165

135

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

195

225

205195

165

185

00 02 04 06 08 10

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 5 Flowability of UHPC with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (Sika)

Table 5 Compressive strength of UHPC

NumberCompressive strength (MPa)

M-PCE Sika3 d 28 d 3 d 28 d

N1 716 1074 748 1088N2 745 1009 821 1154N3 700 1155 837 1233N4 667 1163 644 1188N5 712 1014 804 1137N6 709 995 783 1074N7 647 1186 848 1269N8 769 1125 724 1138N9 810 1174 869 1156N10 793 1046 815 1015N11 776 1194 893 1169N12 800 1174 800 1125N13 858 1085 838 1062N14 827 1103 847 1179N15 864 1187 836 1091

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

102

102

106

118

104

104

116

114

106

112

108

110

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

104

108

118

110

110

112116114

102

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

118116

104

114

112

108

Slag

Fly a

sh

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

108116

109

112108

109

112

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 6 Compressive strength of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

119118

116

109

117

116 111

113

115

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

124123

113

122 121

120119118

117

114

115

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Figure 7 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

Sika was relatively simple in the molecular structure it couldalso be compatible with silicate cement and promote hydrationdue to its advanced compounding process As the silica fumecontent increased the early compressive strength of UHPCgradually increased however when silica fume contentexceeded 25 this trend slowed low Due to the high poz-zolanic activity and microaggregate effect of silica fume silicafume could improve the compressive strength of UHPCAmorphous SiO2 in silica fume reacts with calcium hydroxideproduced by cement hydration to form hydrated calciumsilicate (C-S-H) which could improve the early strength ofUHPC [16 17] It could be seen from Table 5 that when theamount of silica fume was greater than 25 the compressivestrength of UHPC (28d) increased slightly with the increase inthe amount of silica fume In addition it was found that theaddition of slag reduced the compressive strength of UHPC(3d) but increased the strength of UHPC (28h) )is wasbecause when silica fume and slag were mixed in a properproportion a suitable ratio of calcium to silicon (CS) could beproduced Previous studies had shown that in order to makeconcrete stronger the optimal composition of cementingmaterials depends on the fineness of siliceous materials and theratio of calcium to silicon [18] When the ratio of calcium tosilicon was 13 1 the strength of UHPC was greater than thatof silica fume [19]

34 Dry Shrinkage Under the cementation system of ce-ment-silica fume-slag-fly ash UHPC was prepared by usingM-PCE and Sika polycarboxylate respectively )e change indry shrinkage of UHPC for 28 d is shown in Figures 8 and 9

According to the 28-day dry shrinkage test results ofUHPC in Figures 8 and 9 the relationship between the 28-day dry shrinkage Y of UHPC prepared with M-PCE andSika as polycarboxylate and the composition of cementitiousmaterials was established as shown in the followingequation

Y(MminusPCE) 9X1 + 20X2 + 9X3 minus 8X4 minus 027X1X2

minus 006X1X3 + 017X1X4 + 072X2X3

+ 135X2X4 + 088X3X4 minus 00123X1X2X3

minus 00228X1X2X4 minus 0014X1X3X4

minus 08226X2X3X4 + 0015593X1X2X3X4

(8)

Y(Sika) 9X1 + 18X2 + 12X3 minus 15X4 minus 021X1X2

minus 001X1X3 minus 029X1X4 + 043X2X3+ 162X2X4 + 08896X3X4 minus 00071X1X2X3minus 00287X1X2X4 minus 00143X1X3X4minus 07467X2X3X4 + 0013826X1X2X3X4

(9)

From formulas (8)-(9) it could be seen that whenM-PCE and Sika were used silicate cement had the sameeffect on the drying shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) that is thecoefficients of X1 were the same In addition the coefficientsof X4 X1X2 X1X3 X1X2X3 X1X2X4 and X1X3X4 were allnegative indicating that the dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d)could be effectively reduced by only adding silicate cementand silica fume slag and fly ash

As could be seen from Figures 8 and 9 the dry shrinkagevalue of UHPC prepared byM-PCE was slightly greater thanthat of UHPC prepared by Sika Although the molecularstructure of M-PCE contained a large number of water-reducing groups (alcohol groups) it was the M-PCE mothersolution that was used in this experiment In contrast therewere still water-reducing groups in Sikarsquos molecular struc-ture which was more effective in reducing the surfacetension of pore solution [20])erefore the dry shrinkage ofUHPC prepared by Sika would be smaller than that ofUHPC prepared by M-PCE

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

126 122120

104

108

112

108

Slag

Fly a

sh

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

104

116

108 112

116

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 7 Compressive strength of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (Sika)

10 Advances in Civil Engineering

825

675800

800775

775700

725

750

2505 06 07 08 09 10

Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

855

755

805780

730

655

755730

680

705

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

850690

830

810790

710770

730750

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

800

625650

750

675700

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 8 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

770755

680

740740

710

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

7

750

625

775

725

750

700

725

650

675

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 9 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

)e incorporation of fly ash would refine the porestructure of mortar reduce the connectivity of pores andincrease the difficulty in water migration under dryingconditions which showed a positive effect on dryingshrinkage that is drying shrinkage would be greatly re-duced [21] )erefore it was found from Figures 8 and 9that the dry shrinkage of UHPC became much larger whensilica fume content was around 50 )is was because theeffect of silica fume on the drying shrinkage of UHPC wasmainly due to the volcanic ash effect Silica fume had highactivity and could react with the hydration productCa(OH)2 to form C-S-H gel which on the one hand notonly reduced the amount of flake crystal Ca(OH)2 andincreased the amount of C-S-H in cement but also on theother hand refines the pore size and improves the porestructure However C-S-H gel itself had a porous structureand would contract under dry conditions while Ca(OH)2was a crystal structure which generally would not contractAt the same time part of Ca(OH)2 was distributed in thevoid of C-S-H gel which had an inhibitory effect on itscontraction [22] )e pozzolanite reaction consumesCa(OH)2 in the cement which eliminates the restrictioneffect of Ca(OH)2 on C-S-H gel shrinkage )erefore itcould be deduced that the higher the reaction degree ofvolcanic ash the greater the drying shrinkage value of thecorresponding specimen)eoretically there was a positivecorrelation between the degree of ash reaction and thecontent of silica fume)erefore the incorporation of silicafume could enhance the dry shrinkage of UHPC

35 Autogenous Shrinkage Under the cementitious systemof cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash UHPC was prepared byusing M-PCE and Sika respectively and the autogenousshrinkage changes in prepared UHPC are shown in Fig-ures 10 and 11

According to the 3-day autogenous shrinkage test resultsof UHPC in Figures 10 and 11 the relation between 3-dayautogenous shrinkage Y of UHPCwith eitherM-PCE or Sikaand the composition of cementation material was estab-lished as shown in the following equation

Y(MminusPCE) 9X1 + 3X2 + 48X3 minus 61X4 + 038X1X2

minus 032X1X3 + 121X1X4 minus 4X2X3

minus 269X2X4 minus 007X3X4 + 006793X1X2X3

+ 005428X1X2X4 + 00098X1X3X4

+ 06089X2X3X4 minus 0010649X1X2X3X4

(10)

Y(Sika) 9X1 + 11X2 + 27X3 minus 78X4 + 081X1X2

minus 027X1X3 + 1579X1X4 minus 019X2X3minus 01X2X4 minus 201X3X4 + 00101X1X2X3+ 00108X1X2X4 + 00435X1X3X4+ 06575X2X3X4 minus 001182X1X2X3X4

(11)

From formulas (10)-(11) it could be seen that silicatecement had the same effect on the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC when either M-PCE or Sika was used that is thecoefficients of X1 were the same In addition the coeffi-cients of X4 X1X3 X2X3 X2X4 X3X4 and X1X2X3X4were all negative indicating the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC could be effectively reduced by either adding flyash silicate cement and slag silica fume and slag silicafume and fly ash or adding the four kinds of cementingmaterials )e other admixture measures all could in-crease the self-contraction of UHPC As could be seenfrom Figures 10 and 11 the influence of M-PCE on UHPCself-shrinking was almost the same as that of Sika onUHPC From the molecular perspective their molecular

790775

760745

700

730

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

550

500

750

550

650

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 9 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (Sika)

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

19001100

1500

1700

1400

16001500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1600 1100

1200

1600

1300

1300

1400

1400

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

1900

1000

1700

1200

1600

1400

1500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1800

1200

1700

13001400

1600

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 10 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

1900 1200

1400

1300

1800

1400

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1400

1500

1400

1800

1500

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 11 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

structure contains a large number of polyethylene glycolreduction groups which could effectively reduce thesurface tension of pore solution )erefore the autoge-nous shrinkage value of UHPC prepared by pure silicatecement was small

In addition we found that adding silica fume alonewould increase the autogenous shrinkage of UHPC whichwas consistent with the results in [23] )e main reasonscould be listed as follows (1) silica fume fineness waslarge and its unique filling effect could refine the porestructure of cement-based materials (2) Ca(OH)2 gen-erated in the early stage was not well grown and very smallin particle size After the addition of silica fume it waseasy to react quickly with silica fume to produce calciumsilicate hydrate with low CS ratio making the interfacebetween the unhydrated cement particles and calciumsilicate hydrate become more compact and uniform [24](3) when the content of silica fume was high the excesssilica fume could continue to react with the generated C-S-H to produce the outer layer of calcium silicate hydratewith a lower CS ratio making the structure of the ce-ment-based materials doped with silica fume more dense[25] )erefore silica fume could reduce the porosity andaverage pore size of UHPC Since the value of autogenousshrinkage was related to the capillary pressure of cement-based materials the capillary pressure was mainly relatedto its diameter )e greater the silica fume content thesmaller the capillary diameter the greater the capillarypressure the greater the value of autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC

Because the chemical shrinkage induced by pozzolanicreaction of slag was greater than that induced by cementhydration it was found that the effect of single dosage of slagon UHPCrsquos autogenous shrinkage was great Meanwhile theactivity and hydration degree of slag was greater than that ofsilicate cement which greatly promoted the growth ofcapillary negative pressure and increased the action area[26 27]

4 Conclusions

In this study pectiniform polycarboxylate was synthesized atroom temperature and its applications in UHPC includingflowability strength drying shrinkage and autogenousshrinkage were investigated )e following conclusionscould be obtained based on the above experimental resultsand discussion

(1) )e polysiloxane in molecular structure had bettercompatibility with silicate cement When eitherM-PCE or Sika was used the positive influence ofsilicate cement on the flowability of UHPC was thesame It is worth noting that the use of three or morecementitious materials had a negative synergisticeffect on the flowability of UHPC although this effectwas weak

(2) )ere was little difference in compressive strength ofHUPC prepared by M-PCE and Sika )e incor-poration of cement with silica fume and that ofcement with fly ash both had a positive effect on the28-day strength of UHPC

(3) )e incorporation of fly ash could effectively reducethe drying shrinkage and autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC In terms of dry shrinkage the dosage of silicafume and fly ash could effectively reduce the 28-daydry shrinkage of UHPC Other incorporationmethods would all increase the 28-day dry shrinkageof UHPC to varying degrees From the perspective ofautogenous shrinkage the incorporation of silicafume and slag that of silica fume and fly ash or thatof all four cementing materials could all effectivelyreduce the 3-day autogenous shrinkage of UHPC

Data Availability

All the data used during the study are available from thecorresponding author by request

1300

1500

14001800

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1500

1300

1600

14001500

1800

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 11 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (Sika)

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

Conflicts of Interest

)e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest

Authorsrsquo Contributions

Shuncheng Xiang conceptualized the study preparedmethodology investigated the study performed datacuration did formal analysis wrote the original draft andrevised the manuscript Yingli Gao administrated theproject obtained funding acquisition and supervised thestudy

Acknowledgments

)e authors gratefully acknowledge the financial supportfrom the National Natural Science Foundation of China(General Program 51978080) Civil Aviation Administrationof China (U1833127) Hunan Province Natural ScienceFoundation (2018JJ4016) Key Scientific Research Projects ofHunan Education Department (18A129) National Key RampDProgram of China (Grant number 2018YFB1600100) andOpen Fund (Grant number kfj190503) of Key Laboratory ofSpecial Environment Road Engineering of Hunan Province(Changsha University of Science amp Technology)

References

[1] P J Andersen D M Roy J M Gaidis and WR Grace andCompany ldquo)e effects of adsorption of superplasticizers onthe surface of cementrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 17no 5 pp 805ndash813 1987

[2] C-Z Li N-Q Feng Y-D Li and R-J Chen ldquoEffects ofpolyethlene oxide chains on the performance of poly-carboxylate-type water-reducersrdquo Cement and Concrete Re-search vol 35 no 5 pp 867ndash873 2005

[3] B He Y Gao L Qu K Duan W Zhou and G PeildquoCharacteristics analysis of self-luminescent cement-basedcomposite materials with self-cleaning effectrdquo Journal ofCleaner Production vol 225 pp 1169ndash1183 2019

[4] Y Gao L Qu B He K Dai Z Fang and R Zhu ldquoStudy oneffectiveness of anti-icing and deicing performance of super-hydrophobic asphalt concreterdquo Construction and BuildingMaterials vol 191 pp 270ndash280 2018

[5] C J Shi ldquoRecent development of PC superplasticizersrdquo inProceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on MixDesign Performance and Use of SCC pp 16ndash25 BeijingChina June 2009

[6] K R Duan Y L Gao H Yao et al ldquoComparison of per-formances of early aged pre-vibrated cement-stabilizedmacadam formed by different compactionsrdquo Constructionand Building Materials vol 239 2020

[7] P C Aitcin ldquo)e durability characteristics of high perfor-mance con-crete reviewrdquo Cement and Concrete Compositesvol 25 pp 409ndash420 2003

[8] M Jones R Dhir and J Gill ldquoConcrete surface treatmenteffect of exposure temperature on chloride diffusion resis-tancerdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 1pp 197ndash208 1995

[9] M Levi C Ferro D Regazzoli G Dotelli and A Lopresti ldquoComparative evaluation method of polymer sur-face treatments applied on high performance concreterdquo

Journal of Materials Science vol 37 no 22 pp 4881ndash48882002

[10] J L )ompson M R Silsbee P M Gill and B E ScheetzldquoCharacterization of silicate sealers on concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 27 no 10 pp 1561ndash1567 1997

[11] D A Kagi and K B Ren ldquoReduction of water absorption insilicate treated concrete by post-treatment with cationicsurfactantsrdquo Building and Environment vol 30 no 2pp 237ndash243 1995

[12] R P Khatri V Sirivivatnanon and W Gross ldquoEffect ofdifferent supplementary cementitious materials on mechan-ical properties of high performance concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 25 no 1 pp 209ndash220 1995

[13] B K Ganesh and P P V Surya ldquoEfficiency of silica fume inconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 6pp 1273ndash1283 1995

[14] R Duval and E H Kadri ldquoInfluence of silica fume on theworkability and the compressive strength of high-perfor-mance concretesrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 28no 4 pp 533ndash547 1998

[15] K H Khayat and P C Aitcin ldquoSilica fume a unique-supplementary cementitious materialrdquo in Mineral Admix-turesin Cement and Concrete S N Ghosh Ed pp 227ndash265ABI Books Private Limited New Delhi India 1993

[16] M Mazloom A A Ramezanianpour and J J Brooks ldquoEffectof silica fume on mechanical properties of high-strengthconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Composites vol 26 no 4pp 347ndash357 2004

[17] T K Erdem and O Kırca ldquoUse of binary and ternary blendsin high strength concreterdquo Construction and Building Ma-terials vol 22 no 7 pp 1477ndash1483 2008

[18] A Elahi P A M Basheer S V Nanukuttan andQ U Z Khan ldquoMechanical and durability properties of highperformance concretes containing supplementary cementi-tious materialsrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 24no 3 pp 292ndash299 2010

[19] Y Dang N Xie A Kessel E McVey A Pace and X ShildquoAccelerated laboratory evaluation of surface treatments forprotecting concrete bridge decks from salt scalingrdquo Con-struction and Building Materials vol 55 pp 128ndash135 2014

[20] J Zhang L Ding F Li and J Peng ldquoRecycled aggregates fromconstruction and demolition wastes as alternative fillingmaterials for highway subgrades in Chinardquo Journal of CleanerProduction vol 255 p 120223 2020

[21] J Zhang F Gu and Y Q Zhang ldquoUse of building-relatedconstruction and demolition wastes in highway embankmentlaboratory and field evaluationsrdquo Journal of Cleaner Pro-duction vol 230 pp 1051ndash1060 2019

[22] H Zhang ldquo)e effect of curing conditions on compressivestrength of ultra high strength concrete with high volumemineral admixturesrdquo Building and Environment vol 42pp 2083ndash2089 2007

[23] S-Y Hong and F P Glasser ldquoPhase relations in the CaO-SiO2-H2O system to 200degC at saturated steam pressurerdquoCement and Concrete Research vol 34 no 9 pp 1529ndash15342004

[24] M H Zhang C T Tam and M P Leow ldquoEffect of water-to-cementitious materials ratio and silica fume on the autoge-nous shrinkage of concreterdquo Cement and Concrete Researchvol 33 no 10 pp 1687ndash1694 2003

[25] H Li Z Yi and Y Xie ldquoProgress of silane impregnatingsurface treatment technology of concrete structurerdquoMaterialsReview vol 26 no 3 pp 120ndash125 2012

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

[26] Z D Rong W Sun H J Xiao and W Wang ldquoEffect of silicafume and fly ash on hydration and microstructure evolutionof cement based composites at low water-binder ratiosrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 51 pp 446ndash4502014

[27] M H F Medeiros and P Helene ldquoSurface treatment ofreinforced concrete in marine environment influence onchloride diffusion coefficient and capillary water absorptionrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 23 no 3pp 1476ndash1484 2009

16 Advances in Civil Engineering

Y(MminusPCE) 17X1 + 05X2 + 13X3 + 56X4 + 0018X1X2

+ 0043X1X3 + 0113X1X4 + 0341X2X3

+ 1009X2X4 + 056X3X4 minus 000509X1X2X3

minus 001644X1X2X4 minus 000909X1X3X4

minus 006326X2X3X4 minus 00014717X1X2X3X4

(4)

Y(Sika) 17X1 + 19X2 + 218X3 + 437X4 + 0064X1X2

+ 00624X1X3 + 00878X1X4 + 09581X2X3+ 11522X2X4 + 06354X3X4 minus 0017113X1X2X3minus 019207X1X2X4 minus 0011209X1X3X4minus 0023754X2X3X4 minus 00019255X1X2X3X4

(5)

According to formulas (4)-(5) the influence of silicatecement on the flowability of UHPC with M-PCE or Sika wasthe same )e values of β123 β124 β134 β234 and β1234 wereall negative indicating that the use of three or more ce-mentitious materials had a negative synergistic effect on theflowability of UHPC although this effect was very weak Onthe contrary the remaining parameters were all positiveindicating that the use of one or two cementitious materialsalone had some positive effect on the flowability of UHPC

As could be seen from Table 4 the flowability of UHPCdecreased as the amount of silica fume increased from 0 to50)is was due to that the silica fume had a small particlesize and the surface of silica fume would absorb a lot ofwater reducers [11] Under the action of polycarboxylatessilica fume acted as an ultrafine particle to disperse cementparticles releasing more free water [12 13] For ordinaryconcrete the amount of silica fume was usually less than10 For high strength and durability concrete it wasnecessary to increase the amount of silica fume to 10 inorder to maintain a certain slump under the action of

polycarboxylate [14] )e amount of silica fume in UHPCwas usually less than 15 [15] It was found that if theamount of silica fume was over 25 it would make UHPCvery thick and reduce the flowability of UHPC Meanwhilethe flowability of UHPC also decreased when the amount ofslag exceeded 25 since the specific surface area of slag wassmaller than that of cement more free water was needed toachieve the same flowability )erefore silica fume and slagsignificantly affected the flowability of UHPC

33 Strength In the cementitious system of cement silicafume slag and fly ash UHPCwas prepared by usingM-PCEand Sika polycarboxylates respectively )e strength of pre-pared UHPC is shown in Table 5 )e quaternion orthogonalanalysis of strength of UHPC is shown in Figures 6 and 7

According to the UHPC strength test results in Table 5the relationship between the 28-day strength Y of UHPCwith M-PCE and Sika used as polycarboxylate and thecomposition of cementing materials was established asshown in the following equation

Y(MminusPCE) 1074X1 + 1164X2 + 2192X3 minus 3006X4

+ 00044X1X2 minus 001912X1X3 + 006038X1X4

minus 16665X2X3 + 01011X2X4 + 07579X3X4

+ 00034705X1X2X3 minus 0000729X1X2X4

minus 00008859X1X3X4 minus 00067229X2X3X4

minus 0000098075X1X2X3X4

(6)

Y(Sika) 109X1 + 109X2 + 207X3 minus 359X4

+ 00026X1X2 minus 00138X1X3 + 0072X1X4minus 00808X2X3 + 02081X2X4 + 01396X3X4+ 0001438X1X2X3 minus 0003189X1X2X4minus 00023989X1X3X4 minus 0008072X2X3X4minus 000014719X1X2X3X4

(7)

From formulas (6)-(7) it could be seen that eitherM-PCE or Sika was used and the effect of silicate cement onthe strength of UHPC (28 d) was almost the same that is thecoefficients on X1 were almost the same In addition thecoefficients of X4 X1X3 X2X3 X1X2X3 X1X2X3 X1X2X4X1X3X4 X2X3X4 X1X2X3X4 X1X2X3X4 X1X2X3X4 andX1X2X3X4 were found to be negative indicating that theseincorporation methods had a negative synergistic effect onthe strength of UHPC (28 d) Compared with the incor-poration of silicate cement and silica fume the incorpora-tion of silicate cement and fly ash had a positive influence onthe strength of UHPC (28 d)

It could be seen from Table 5 that there was little differencein the compressive strength of HUPC prepared with M-PCEand that prepared with Sika )e polyorganosiloxane group inM-PCE mother liquor could promote hydration Although

Table 2 Binder compositions of UHPC

No Cement () Silica fume () Slag () Fly ash ()N1 100 0 0 0N2 50 50 0 0N3 50 0 50 0N4 50 0 0 50N5 75 25 0 0N6 75 0 25 0N7 75 0 0 25N8 50 25 25 0N9 50 25 0 25N10 50 0 25 25N11 666 167 167 0N12 666 167 0 167N13 666 0 167 167N14 50 167 167 167N15 625 125 125 125

6 Advances in Civil Engineering

Table 3 Water reduction rate of polycarboxylate in mortar

Polycarboxylate Cement (g) Sand (g) Water (M1) (g) Flowability Water-reducing rate ()M-PCE 450 1350 1286 180mm 183mm 373Sika 450 1350 1335 180mm 185mm 348

Table 4 Initial flowability of UHPC with different compositions (mm)

PolycarboxylateNumber

N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8 N9 N10 N11 N12 N13 N14 N15M-PCE 165 153 125 192 170 172 195 193 235 170 165 146 155 178 102Sika 170 150 132 210 200 190 183 205 238 156 135 142 140 160 110

00

190

160

140150

150 170160

180

170

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

Silica fumeFl

y ash

220

150200

190

170

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Slag

Fly a

sh

135

140

185

145

150

175

155155

165

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00

01

02

03

04

05221

157

205

173

181

189

00

02

04

06

08

10

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 4 Flowability of UHPC with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (M-PCE)

Advances in Civil Engineering 7

Silica fumeSla

g

150180

190

150

180

170

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

170

220

150200

170

190

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Slag

Fly a

sh

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

145

145

185

175

175

155

165

135

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

195

225

205195

165

185

00 02 04 06 08 10

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 5 Flowability of UHPC with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (Sika)

Table 5 Compressive strength of UHPC

NumberCompressive strength (MPa)

M-PCE Sika3 d 28 d 3 d 28 d

N1 716 1074 748 1088N2 745 1009 821 1154N3 700 1155 837 1233N4 667 1163 644 1188N5 712 1014 804 1137N6 709 995 783 1074N7 647 1186 848 1269N8 769 1125 724 1138N9 810 1174 869 1156N10 793 1046 815 1015N11 776 1194 893 1169N12 800 1174 800 1125N13 858 1085 838 1062N14 827 1103 847 1179N15 864 1187 836 1091

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

102

102

106

118

104

104

116

114

106

112

108

110

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

104

108

118

110

110

112116114

102

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

118116

104

114

112

108

Slag

Fly a

sh

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

108116

109

112108

109

112

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 6 Compressive strength of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

119118

116

109

117

116 111

113

115

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

124123

113

122 121

120119118

117

114

115

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Figure 7 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

Sika was relatively simple in the molecular structure it couldalso be compatible with silicate cement and promote hydrationdue to its advanced compounding process As the silica fumecontent increased the early compressive strength of UHPCgradually increased however when silica fume contentexceeded 25 this trend slowed low Due to the high poz-zolanic activity and microaggregate effect of silica fume silicafume could improve the compressive strength of UHPCAmorphous SiO2 in silica fume reacts with calcium hydroxideproduced by cement hydration to form hydrated calciumsilicate (C-S-H) which could improve the early strength ofUHPC [16 17] It could be seen from Table 5 that when theamount of silica fume was greater than 25 the compressivestrength of UHPC (28d) increased slightly with the increase inthe amount of silica fume In addition it was found that theaddition of slag reduced the compressive strength of UHPC(3d) but increased the strength of UHPC (28h) )is wasbecause when silica fume and slag were mixed in a properproportion a suitable ratio of calcium to silicon (CS) could beproduced Previous studies had shown that in order to makeconcrete stronger the optimal composition of cementingmaterials depends on the fineness of siliceous materials and theratio of calcium to silicon [18] When the ratio of calcium tosilicon was 13 1 the strength of UHPC was greater than thatof silica fume [19]

34 Dry Shrinkage Under the cementation system of ce-ment-silica fume-slag-fly ash UHPC was prepared by usingM-PCE and Sika polycarboxylate respectively )e change indry shrinkage of UHPC for 28 d is shown in Figures 8 and 9

According to the 28-day dry shrinkage test results ofUHPC in Figures 8 and 9 the relationship between the 28-day dry shrinkage Y of UHPC prepared with M-PCE andSika as polycarboxylate and the composition of cementitiousmaterials was established as shown in the followingequation

Y(MminusPCE) 9X1 + 20X2 + 9X3 minus 8X4 minus 027X1X2

minus 006X1X3 + 017X1X4 + 072X2X3

+ 135X2X4 + 088X3X4 minus 00123X1X2X3

minus 00228X1X2X4 minus 0014X1X3X4

minus 08226X2X3X4 + 0015593X1X2X3X4

(8)

Y(Sika) 9X1 + 18X2 + 12X3 minus 15X4 minus 021X1X2

minus 001X1X3 minus 029X1X4 + 043X2X3+ 162X2X4 + 08896X3X4 minus 00071X1X2X3minus 00287X1X2X4 minus 00143X1X3X4minus 07467X2X3X4 + 0013826X1X2X3X4

(9)

From formulas (8)-(9) it could be seen that whenM-PCE and Sika were used silicate cement had the sameeffect on the drying shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) that is thecoefficients of X1 were the same In addition the coefficientsof X4 X1X2 X1X3 X1X2X3 X1X2X4 and X1X3X4 were allnegative indicating that the dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d)could be effectively reduced by only adding silicate cementand silica fume slag and fly ash

As could be seen from Figures 8 and 9 the dry shrinkagevalue of UHPC prepared byM-PCE was slightly greater thanthat of UHPC prepared by Sika Although the molecularstructure of M-PCE contained a large number of water-reducing groups (alcohol groups) it was the M-PCE mothersolution that was used in this experiment In contrast therewere still water-reducing groups in Sikarsquos molecular struc-ture which was more effective in reducing the surfacetension of pore solution [20])erefore the dry shrinkage ofUHPC prepared by Sika would be smaller than that ofUHPC prepared by M-PCE

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

126 122120

104

108

112

108

Slag

Fly a

sh

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

104

116

108 112

116

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 7 Compressive strength of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (Sika)

10 Advances in Civil Engineering

825

675800

800775

775700

725

750

2505 06 07 08 09 10

Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

855

755

805780

730

655

755730

680

705

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

850690

830

810790

710770

730750

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

800

625650

750

675700

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 8 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

770755

680

740740

710

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

7

750

625

775

725

750

700

725

650

675

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 9 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

)e incorporation of fly ash would refine the porestructure of mortar reduce the connectivity of pores andincrease the difficulty in water migration under dryingconditions which showed a positive effect on dryingshrinkage that is drying shrinkage would be greatly re-duced [21] )erefore it was found from Figures 8 and 9that the dry shrinkage of UHPC became much larger whensilica fume content was around 50 )is was because theeffect of silica fume on the drying shrinkage of UHPC wasmainly due to the volcanic ash effect Silica fume had highactivity and could react with the hydration productCa(OH)2 to form C-S-H gel which on the one hand notonly reduced the amount of flake crystal Ca(OH)2 andincreased the amount of C-S-H in cement but also on theother hand refines the pore size and improves the porestructure However C-S-H gel itself had a porous structureand would contract under dry conditions while Ca(OH)2was a crystal structure which generally would not contractAt the same time part of Ca(OH)2 was distributed in thevoid of C-S-H gel which had an inhibitory effect on itscontraction [22] )e pozzolanite reaction consumesCa(OH)2 in the cement which eliminates the restrictioneffect of Ca(OH)2 on C-S-H gel shrinkage )erefore itcould be deduced that the higher the reaction degree ofvolcanic ash the greater the drying shrinkage value of thecorresponding specimen)eoretically there was a positivecorrelation between the degree of ash reaction and thecontent of silica fume)erefore the incorporation of silicafume could enhance the dry shrinkage of UHPC

35 Autogenous Shrinkage Under the cementitious systemof cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash UHPC was prepared byusing M-PCE and Sika respectively and the autogenousshrinkage changes in prepared UHPC are shown in Fig-ures 10 and 11

According to the 3-day autogenous shrinkage test resultsof UHPC in Figures 10 and 11 the relation between 3-dayautogenous shrinkage Y of UHPCwith eitherM-PCE or Sikaand the composition of cementation material was estab-lished as shown in the following equation

Y(MminusPCE) 9X1 + 3X2 + 48X3 minus 61X4 + 038X1X2

minus 032X1X3 + 121X1X4 minus 4X2X3

minus 269X2X4 minus 007X3X4 + 006793X1X2X3

+ 005428X1X2X4 + 00098X1X3X4

+ 06089X2X3X4 minus 0010649X1X2X3X4

(10)

Y(Sika) 9X1 + 11X2 + 27X3 minus 78X4 + 081X1X2

minus 027X1X3 + 1579X1X4 minus 019X2X3minus 01X2X4 minus 201X3X4 + 00101X1X2X3+ 00108X1X2X4 + 00435X1X3X4+ 06575X2X3X4 minus 001182X1X2X3X4

(11)

From formulas (10)-(11) it could be seen that silicatecement had the same effect on the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC when either M-PCE or Sika was used that is thecoefficients of X1 were the same In addition the coeffi-cients of X4 X1X3 X2X3 X2X4 X3X4 and X1X2X3X4were all negative indicating the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC could be effectively reduced by either adding flyash silicate cement and slag silica fume and slag silicafume and fly ash or adding the four kinds of cementingmaterials )e other admixture measures all could in-crease the self-contraction of UHPC As could be seenfrom Figures 10 and 11 the influence of M-PCE on UHPCself-shrinking was almost the same as that of Sika onUHPC From the molecular perspective their molecular

790775

760745

700

730

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

550

500

750

550

650

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 9 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (Sika)

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

19001100

1500

1700

1400

16001500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1600 1100

1200

1600

1300

1300

1400

1400

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

1900

1000

1700

1200

1600

1400

1500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1800

1200

1700

13001400

1600

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 10 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

1900 1200

1400

1300

1800

1400

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1400

1500

1400

1800

1500

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 11 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

structure contains a large number of polyethylene glycolreduction groups which could effectively reduce thesurface tension of pore solution )erefore the autoge-nous shrinkage value of UHPC prepared by pure silicatecement was small

In addition we found that adding silica fume alonewould increase the autogenous shrinkage of UHPC whichwas consistent with the results in [23] )e main reasonscould be listed as follows (1) silica fume fineness waslarge and its unique filling effect could refine the porestructure of cement-based materials (2) Ca(OH)2 gen-erated in the early stage was not well grown and very smallin particle size After the addition of silica fume it waseasy to react quickly with silica fume to produce calciumsilicate hydrate with low CS ratio making the interfacebetween the unhydrated cement particles and calciumsilicate hydrate become more compact and uniform [24](3) when the content of silica fume was high the excesssilica fume could continue to react with the generated C-S-H to produce the outer layer of calcium silicate hydratewith a lower CS ratio making the structure of the ce-ment-based materials doped with silica fume more dense[25] )erefore silica fume could reduce the porosity andaverage pore size of UHPC Since the value of autogenousshrinkage was related to the capillary pressure of cement-based materials the capillary pressure was mainly relatedto its diameter )e greater the silica fume content thesmaller the capillary diameter the greater the capillarypressure the greater the value of autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC

Because the chemical shrinkage induced by pozzolanicreaction of slag was greater than that induced by cementhydration it was found that the effect of single dosage of slagon UHPCrsquos autogenous shrinkage was great Meanwhile theactivity and hydration degree of slag was greater than that ofsilicate cement which greatly promoted the growth ofcapillary negative pressure and increased the action area[26 27]

4 Conclusions

In this study pectiniform polycarboxylate was synthesized atroom temperature and its applications in UHPC includingflowability strength drying shrinkage and autogenousshrinkage were investigated )e following conclusionscould be obtained based on the above experimental resultsand discussion

(1) )e polysiloxane in molecular structure had bettercompatibility with silicate cement When eitherM-PCE or Sika was used the positive influence ofsilicate cement on the flowability of UHPC was thesame It is worth noting that the use of three or morecementitious materials had a negative synergisticeffect on the flowability of UHPC although this effectwas weak

(2) )ere was little difference in compressive strength ofHUPC prepared by M-PCE and Sika )e incor-poration of cement with silica fume and that ofcement with fly ash both had a positive effect on the28-day strength of UHPC

(3) )e incorporation of fly ash could effectively reducethe drying shrinkage and autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC In terms of dry shrinkage the dosage of silicafume and fly ash could effectively reduce the 28-daydry shrinkage of UHPC Other incorporationmethods would all increase the 28-day dry shrinkageof UHPC to varying degrees From the perspective ofautogenous shrinkage the incorporation of silicafume and slag that of silica fume and fly ash or thatof all four cementing materials could all effectivelyreduce the 3-day autogenous shrinkage of UHPC

Data Availability

All the data used during the study are available from thecorresponding author by request

1300

1500

14001800

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1500

1300

1600

14001500

1800

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 11 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (Sika)

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

Conflicts of Interest

)e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest

Authorsrsquo Contributions

Shuncheng Xiang conceptualized the study preparedmethodology investigated the study performed datacuration did formal analysis wrote the original draft andrevised the manuscript Yingli Gao administrated theproject obtained funding acquisition and supervised thestudy

Acknowledgments

)e authors gratefully acknowledge the financial supportfrom the National Natural Science Foundation of China(General Program 51978080) Civil Aviation Administrationof China (U1833127) Hunan Province Natural ScienceFoundation (2018JJ4016) Key Scientific Research Projects ofHunan Education Department (18A129) National Key RampDProgram of China (Grant number 2018YFB1600100) andOpen Fund (Grant number kfj190503) of Key Laboratory ofSpecial Environment Road Engineering of Hunan Province(Changsha University of Science amp Technology)

References

[1] P J Andersen D M Roy J M Gaidis and WR Grace andCompany ldquo)e effects of adsorption of superplasticizers onthe surface of cementrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 17no 5 pp 805ndash813 1987

[2] C-Z Li N-Q Feng Y-D Li and R-J Chen ldquoEffects ofpolyethlene oxide chains on the performance of poly-carboxylate-type water-reducersrdquo Cement and Concrete Re-search vol 35 no 5 pp 867ndash873 2005

[3] B He Y Gao L Qu K Duan W Zhou and G PeildquoCharacteristics analysis of self-luminescent cement-basedcomposite materials with self-cleaning effectrdquo Journal ofCleaner Production vol 225 pp 1169ndash1183 2019

[4] Y Gao L Qu B He K Dai Z Fang and R Zhu ldquoStudy oneffectiveness of anti-icing and deicing performance of super-hydrophobic asphalt concreterdquo Construction and BuildingMaterials vol 191 pp 270ndash280 2018

[5] C J Shi ldquoRecent development of PC superplasticizersrdquo inProceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on MixDesign Performance and Use of SCC pp 16ndash25 BeijingChina June 2009

[6] K R Duan Y L Gao H Yao et al ldquoComparison of per-formances of early aged pre-vibrated cement-stabilizedmacadam formed by different compactionsrdquo Constructionand Building Materials vol 239 2020

[7] P C Aitcin ldquo)e durability characteristics of high perfor-mance con-crete reviewrdquo Cement and Concrete Compositesvol 25 pp 409ndash420 2003

[8] M Jones R Dhir and J Gill ldquoConcrete surface treatmenteffect of exposure temperature on chloride diffusion resis-tancerdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 1pp 197ndash208 1995

[9] M Levi C Ferro D Regazzoli G Dotelli and A Lopresti ldquoComparative evaluation method of polymer sur-face treatments applied on high performance concreterdquo

Journal of Materials Science vol 37 no 22 pp 4881ndash48882002

[10] J L )ompson M R Silsbee P M Gill and B E ScheetzldquoCharacterization of silicate sealers on concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 27 no 10 pp 1561ndash1567 1997

[11] D A Kagi and K B Ren ldquoReduction of water absorption insilicate treated concrete by post-treatment with cationicsurfactantsrdquo Building and Environment vol 30 no 2pp 237ndash243 1995

[12] R P Khatri V Sirivivatnanon and W Gross ldquoEffect ofdifferent supplementary cementitious materials on mechan-ical properties of high performance concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 25 no 1 pp 209ndash220 1995

[13] B K Ganesh and P P V Surya ldquoEfficiency of silica fume inconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 6pp 1273ndash1283 1995

[14] R Duval and E H Kadri ldquoInfluence of silica fume on theworkability and the compressive strength of high-perfor-mance concretesrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 28no 4 pp 533ndash547 1998

[15] K H Khayat and P C Aitcin ldquoSilica fume a unique-supplementary cementitious materialrdquo in Mineral Admix-turesin Cement and Concrete S N Ghosh Ed pp 227ndash265ABI Books Private Limited New Delhi India 1993

[16] M Mazloom A A Ramezanianpour and J J Brooks ldquoEffectof silica fume on mechanical properties of high-strengthconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Composites vol 26 no 4pp 347ndash357 2004

[17] T K Erdem and O Kırca ldquoUse of binary and ternary blendsin high strength concreterdquo Construction and Building Ma-terials vol 22 no 7 pp 1477ndash1483 2008

[18] A Elahi P A M Basheer S V Nanukuttan andQ U Z Khan ldquoMechanical and durability properties of highperformance concretes containing supplementary cementi-tious materialsrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 24no 3 pp 292ndash299 2010

[19] Y Dang N Xie A Kessel E McVey A Pace and X ShildquoAccelerated laboratory evaluation of surface treatments forprotecting concrete bridge decks from salt scalingrdquo Con-struction and Building Materials vol 55 pp 128ndash135 2014

[20] J Zhang L Ding F Li and J Peng ldquoRecycled aggregates fromconstruction and demolition wastes as alternative fillingmaterials for highway subgrades in Chinardquo Journal of CleanerProduction vol 255 p 120223 2020

[21] J Zhang F Gu and Y Q Zhang ldquoUse of building-relatedconstruction and demolition wastes in highway embankmentlaboratory and field evaluationsrdquo Journal of Cleaner Pro-duction vol 230 pp 1051ndash1060 2019

[22] H Zhang ldquo)e effect of curing conditions on compressivestrength of ultra high strength concrete with high volumemineral admixturesrdquo Building and Environment vol 42pp 2083ndash2089 2007

[23] S-Y Hong and F P Glasser ldquoPhase relations in the CaO-SiO2-H2O system to 200degC at saturated steam pressurerdquoCement and Concrete Research vol 34 no 9 pp 1529ndash15342004

[24] M H Zhang C T Tam and M P Leow ldquoEffect of water-to-cementitious materials ratio and silica fume on the autoge-nous shrinkage of concreterdquo Cement and Concrete Researchvol 33 no 10 pp 1687ndash1694 2003

[25] H Li Z Yi and Y Xie ldquoProgress of silane impregnatingsurface treatment technology of concrete structurerdquoMaterialsReview vol 26 no 3 pp 120ndash125 2012

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

[26] Z D Rong W Sun H J Xiao and W Wang ldquoEffect of silicafume and fly ash on hydration and microstructure evolutionof cement based composites at low water-binder ratiosrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 51 pp 446ndash4502014

[27] M H F Medeiros and P Helene ldquoSurface treatment ofreinforced concrete in marine environment influence onchloride diffusion coefficient and capillary water absorptionrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 23 no 3pp 1476ndash1484 2009

16 Advances in Civil Engineering

Table 3 Water reduction rate of polycarboxylate in mortar

Polycarboxylate Cement (g) Sand (g) Water (M1) (g) Flowability Water-reducing rate ()M-PCE 450 1350 1286 180mm 183mm 373Sika 450 1350 1335 180mm 185mm 348

Table 4 Initial flowability of UHPC with different compositions (mm)

PolycarboxylateNumber

N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8 N9 N10 N11 N12 N13 N14 N15M-PCE 165 153 125 192 170 172 195 193 235 170 165 146 155 178 102Sika 170 150 132 210 200 190 183 205 238 156 135 142 140 160 110

00

190

160

140150

150 170160

180

170

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

Silica fumeFl

y ash

220

150200

190

170

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Slag

Fly a

sh

135

140

185

145

150

175

155155

165

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00

01

02

03

04

05221

157

205

173

181

189

00

02

04

06

08

10

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 4 Flowability of UHPC with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (M-PCE)

Advances in Civil Engineering 7

Silica fumeSla

g

150180

190

150

180

170

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

170

220

150200

170

190

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Slag

Fly a

sh

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

145

145

185

175

175

155

165

135

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

195

225

205195

165

185

00 02 04 06 08 10

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 5 Flowability of UHPC with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (Sika)

Table 5 Compressive strength of UHPC

NumberCompressive strength (MPa)

M-PCE Sika3 d 28 d 3 d 28 d

N1 716 1074 748 1088N2 745 1009 821 1154N3 700 1155 837 1233N4 667 1163 644 1188N5 712 1014 804 1137N6 709 995 783 1074N7 647 1186 848 1269N8 769 1125 724 1138N9 810 1174 869 1156N10 793 1046 815 1015N11 776 1194 893 1169N12 800 1174 800 1125N13 858 1085 838 1062N14 827 1103 847 1179N15 864 1187 836 1091

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

102

102

106

118

104

104

116

114

106

112

108

110

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

104

108

118

110

110

112116114

102

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

118116

104

114

112

108

Slag

Fly a

sh

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

108116

109

112108

109

112

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 6 Compressive strength of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

119118

116

109

117

116 111

113

115

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

124123

113

122 121

120119118

117

114

115

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Figure 7 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

Sika was relatively simple in the molecular structure it couldalso be compatible with silicate cement and promote hydrationdue to its advanced compounding process As the silica fumecontent increased the early compressive strength of UHPCgradually increased however when silica fume contentexceeded 25 this trend slowed low Due to the high poz-zolanic activity and microaggregate effect of silica fume silicafume could improve the compressive strength of UHPCAmorphous SiO2 in silica fume reacts with calcium hydroxideproduced by cement hydration to form hydrated calciumsilicate (C-S-H) which could improve the early strength ofUHPC [16 17] It could be seen from Table 5 that when theamount of silica fume was greater than 25 the compressivestrength of UHPC (28d) increased slightly with the increase inthe amount of silica fume In addition it was found that theaddition of slag reduced the compressive strength of UHPC(3d) but increased the strength of UHPC (28h) )is wasbecause when silica fume and slag were mixed in a properproportion a suitable ratio of calcium to silicon (CS) could beproduced Previous studies had shown that in order to makeconcrete stronger the optimal composition of cementingmaterials depends on the fineness of siliceous materials and theratio of calcium to silicon [18] When the ratio of calcium tosilicon was 13 1 the strength of UHPC was greater than thatof silica fume [19]

34 Dry Shrinkage Under the cementation system of ce-ment-silica fume-slag-fly ash UHPC was prepared by usingM-PCE and Sika polycarboxylate respectively )e change indry shrinkage of UHPC for 28 d is shown in Figures 8 and 9

According to the 28-day dry shrinkage test results ofUHPC in Figures 8 and 9 the relationship between the 28-day dry shrinkage Y of UHPC prepared with M-PCE andSika as polycarboxylate and the composition of cementitiousmaterials was established as shown in the followingequation

Y(MminusPCE) 9X1 + 20X2 + 9X3 minus 8X4 minus 027X1X2

minus 006X1X3 + 017X1X4 + 072X2X3

+ 135X2X4 + 088X3X4 minus 00123X1X2X3

minus 00228X1X2X4 minus 0014X1X3X4

minus 08226X2X3X4 + 0015593X1X2X3X4

(8)

Y(Sika) 9X1 + 18X2 + 12X3 minus 15X4 minus 021X1X2

minus 001X1X3 minus 029X1X4 + 043X2X3+ 162X2X4 + 08896X3X4 minus 00071X1X2X3minus 00287X1X2X4 minus 00143X1X3X4minus 07467X2X3X4 + 0013826X1X2X3X4

(9)

From formulas (8)-(9) it could be seen that whenM-PCE and Sika were used silicate cement had the sameeffect on the drying shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) that is thecoefficients of X1 were the same In addition the coefficientsof X4 X1X2 X1X3 X1X2X3 X1X2X4 and X1X3X4 were allnegative indicating that the dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d)could be effectively reduced by only adding silicate cementand silica fume slag and fly ash

As could be seen from Figures 8 and 9 the dry shrinkagevalue of UHPC prepared byM-PCE was slightly greater thanthat of UHPC prepared by Sika Although the molecularstructure of M-PCE contained a large number of water-reducing groups (alcohol groups) it was the M-PCE mothersolution that was used in this experiment In contrast therewere still water-reducing groups in Sikarsquos molecular struc-ture which was more effective in reducing the surfacetension of pore solution [20])erefore the dry shrinkage ofUHPC prepared by Sika would be smaller than that ofUHPC prepared by M-PCE

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

126 122120

104

108

112

108

Slag

Fly a

sh

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

104

116

108 112

116

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 7 Compressive strength of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (Sika)

10 Advances in Civil Engineering

825

675800

800775

775700

725

750

2505 06 07 08 09 10

Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

855

755

805780

730

655

755730

680

705

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

850690

830

810790

710770

730750

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

800

625650

750

675700

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 8 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

770755

680

740740

710

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

7

750

625

775

725

750

700

725

650

675

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 9 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

)e incorporation of fly ash would refine the porestructure of mortar reduce the connectivity of pores andincrease the difficulty in water migration under dryingconditions which showed a positive effect on dryingshrinkage that is drying shrinkage would be greatly re-duced [21] )erefore it was found from Figures 8 and 9that the dry shrinkage of UHPC became much larger whensilica fume content was around 50 )is was because theeffect of silica fume on the drying shrinkage of UHPC wasmainly due to the volcanic ash effect Silica fume had highactivity and could react with the hydration productCa(OH)2 to form C-S-H gel which on the one hand notonly reduced the amount of flake crystal Ca(OH)2 andincreased the amount of C-S-H in cement but also on theother hand refines the pore size and improves the porestructure However C-S-H gel itself had a porous structureand would contract under dry conditions while Ca(OH)2was a crystal structure which generally would not contractAt the same time part of Ca(OH)2 was distributed in thevoid of C-S-H gel which had an inhibitory effect on itscontraction [22] )e pozzolanite reaction consumesCa(OH)2 in the cement which eliminates the restrictioneffect of Ca(OH)2 on C-S-H gel shrinkage )erefore itcould be deduced that the higher the reaction degree ofvolcanic ash the greater the drying shrinkage value of thecorresponding specimen)eoretically there was a positivecorrelation between the degree of ash reaction and thecontent of silica fume)erefore the incorporation of silicafume could enhance the dry shrinkage of UHPC

35 Autogenous Shrinkage Under the cementitious systemof cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash UHPC was prepared byusing M-PCE and Sika respectively and the autogenousshrinkage changes in prepared UHPC are shown in Fig-ures 10 and 11

According to the 3-day autogenous shrinkage test resultsof UHPC in Figures 10 and 11 the relation between 3-dayautogenous shrinkage Y of UHPCwith eitherM-PCE or Sikaand the composition of cementation material was estab-lished as shown in the following equation

Y(MminusPCE) 9X1 + 3X2 + 48X3 minus 61X4 + 038X1X2

minus 032X1X3 + 121X1X4 minus 4X2X3

minus 269X2X4 minus 007X3X4 + 006793X1X2X3

+ 005428X1X2X4 + 00098X1X3X4

+ 06089X2X3X4 minus 0010649X1X2X3X4

(10)

Y(Sika) 9X1 + 11X2 + 27X3 minus 78X4 + 081X1X2

minus 027X1X3 + 1579X1X4 minus 019X2X3minus 01X2X4 minus 201X3X4 + 00101X1X2X3+ 00108X1X2X4 + 00435X1X3X4+ 06575X2X3X4 minus 001182X1X2X3X4

(11)

From formulas (10)-(11) it could be seen that silicatecement had the same effect on the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC when either M-PCE or Sika was used that is thecoefficients of X1 were the same In addition the coeffi-cients of X4 X1X3 X2X3 X2X4 X3X4 and X1X2X3X4were all negative indicating the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC could be effectively reduced by either adding flyash silicate cement and slag silica fume and slag silicafume and fly ash or adding the four kinds of cementingmaterials )e other admixture measures all could in-crease the self-contraction of UHPC As could be seenfrom Figures 10 and 11 the influence of M-PCE on UHPCself-shrinking was almost the same as that of Sika onUHPC From the molecular perspective their molecular

790775

760745

700

730

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

550

500

750

550

650

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 9 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (Sika)

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

19001100

1500

1700

1400

16001500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1600 1100

1200

1600

1300

1300

1400

1400

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

1900

1000

1700

1200

1600

1400

1500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1800

1200

1700

13001400

1600

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 10 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

1900 1200

1400

1300

1800

1400

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1400

1500

1400

1800

1500

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 11 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

structure contains a large number of polyethylene glycolreduction groups which could effectively reduce thesurface tension of pore solution )erefore the autoge-nous shrinkage value of UHPC prepared by pure silicatecement was small

In addition we found that adding silica fume alonewould increase the autogenous shrinkage of UHPC whichwas consistent with the results in [23] )e main reasonscould be listed as follows (1) silica fume fineness waslarge and its unique filling effect could refine the porestructure of cement-based materials (2) Ca(OH)2 gen-erated in the early stage was not well grown and very smallin particle size After the addition of silica fume it waseasy to react quickly with silica fume to produce calciumsilicate hydrate with low CS ratio making the interfacebetween the unhydrated cement particles and calciumsilicate hydrate become more compact and uniform [24](3) when the content of silica fume was high the excesssilica fume could continue to react with the generated C-S-H to produce the outer layer of calcium silicate hydratewith a lower CS ratio making the structure of the ce-ment-based materials doped with silica fume more dense[25] )erefore silica fume could reduce the porosity andaverage pore size of UHPC Since the value of autogenousshrinkage was related to the capillary pressure of cement-based materials the capillary pressure was mainly relatedto its diameter )e greater the silica fume content thesmaller the capillary diameter the greater the capillarypressure the greater the value of autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC

Because the chemical shrinkage induced by pozzolanicreaction of slag was greater than that induced by cementhydration it was found that the effect of single dosage of slagon UHPCrsquos autogenous shrinkage was great Meanwhile theactivity and hydration degree of slag was greater than that ofsilicate cement which greatly promoted the growth ofcapillary negative pressure and increased the action area[26 27]

4 Conclusions

In this study pectiniform polycarboxylate was synthesized atroom temperature and its applications in UHPC includingflowability strength drying shrinkage and autogenousshrinkage were investigated )e following conclusionscould be obtained based on the above experimental resultsand discussion

(1) )e polysiloxane in molecular structure had bettercompatibility with silicate cement When eitherM-PCE or Sika was used the positive influence ofsilicate cement on the flowability of UHPC was thesame It is worth noting that the use of three or morecementitious materials had a negative synergisticeffect on the flowability of UHPC although this effectwas weak

(2) )ere was little difference in compressive strength ofHUPC prepared by M-PCE and Sika )e incor-poration of cement with silica fume and that ofcement with fly ash both had a positive effect on the28-day strength of UHPC

(3) )e incorporation of fly ash could effectively reducethe drying shrinkage and autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC In terms of dry shrinkage the dosage of silicafume and fly ash could effectively reduce the 28-daydry shrinkage of UHPC Other incorporationmethods would all increase the 28-day dry shrinkageof UHPC to varying degrees From the perspective ofautogenous shrinkage the incorporation of silicafume and slag that of silica fume and fly ash or thatof all four cementing materials could all effectivelyreduce the 3-day autogenous shrinkage of UHPC

Data Availability

All the data used during the study are available from thecorresponding author by request

1300

1500

14001800

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1500

1300

1600

14001500

1800

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 11 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (Sika)

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

Conflicts of Interest

)e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest

Authorsrsquo Contributions

Shuncheng Xiang conceptualized the study preparedmethodology investigated the study performed datacuration did formal analysis wrote the original draft andrevised the manuscript Yingli Gao administrated theproject obtained funding acquisition and supervised thestudy

Acknowledgments

)e authors gratefully acknowledge the financial supportfrom the National Natural Science Foundation of China(General Program 51978080) Civil Aviation Administrationof China (U1833127) Hunan Province Natural ScienceFoundation (2018JJ4016) Key Scientific Research Projects ofHunan Education Department (18A129) National Key RampDProgram of China (Grant number 2018YFB1600100) andOpen Fund (Grant number kfj190503) of Key Laboratory ofSpecial Environment Road Engineering of Hunan Province(Changsha University of Science amp Technology)

References

[1] P J Andersen D M Roy J M Gaidis and WR Grace andCompany ldquo)e effects of adsorption of superplasticizers onthe surface of cementrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 17no 5 pp 805ndash813 1987

[2] C-Z Li N-Q Feng Y-D Li and R-J Chen ldquoEffects ofpolyethlene oxide chains on the performance of poly-carboxylate-type water-reducersrdquo Cement and Concrete Re-search vol 35 no 5 pp 867ndash873 2005

[3] B He Y Gao L Qu K Duan W Zhou and G PeildquoCharacteristics analysis of self-luminescent cement-basedcomposite materials with self-cleaning effectrdquo Journal ofCleaner Production vol 225 pp 1169ndash1183 2019

[4] Y Gao L Qu B He K Dai Z Fang and R Zhu ldquoStudy oneffectiveness of anti-icing and deicing performance of super-hydrophobic asphalt concreterdquo Construction and BuildingMaterials vol 191 pp 270ndash280 2018

[5] C J Shi ldquoRecent development of PC superplasticizersrdquo inProceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on MixDesign Performance and Use of SCC pp 16ndash25 BeijingChina June 2009

[6] K R Duan Y L Gao H Yao et al ldquoComparison of per-formances of early aged pre-vibrated cement-stabilizedmacadam formed by different compactionsrdquo Constructionand Building Materials vol 239 2020

[7] P C Aitcin ldquo)e durability characteristics of high perfor-mance con-crete reviewrdquo Cement and Concrete Compositesvol 25 pp 409ndash420 2003

[8] M Jones R Dhir and J Gill ldquoConcrete surface treatmenteffect of exposure temperature on chloride diffusion resis-tancerdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 1pp 197ndash208 1995

[9] M Levi C Ferro D Regazzoli G Dotelli and A Lopresti ldquoComparative evaluation method of polymer sur-face treatments applied on high performance concreterdquo

Journal of Materials Science vol 37 no 22 pp 4881ndash48882002

[10] J L )ompson M R Silsbee P M Gill and B E ScheetzldquoCharacterization of silicate sealers on concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 27 no 10 pp 1561ndash1567 1997

[11] D A Kagi and K B Ren ldquoReduction of water absorption insilicate treated concrete by post-treatment with cationicsurfactantsrdquo Building and Environment vol 30 no 2pp 237ndash243 1995

[12] R P Khatri V Sirivivatnanon and W Gross ldquoEffect ofdifferent supplementary cementitious materials on mechan-ical properties of high performance concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 25 no 1 pp 209ndash220 1995

[13] B K Ganesh and P P V Surya ldquoEfficiency of silica fume inconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 6pp 1273ndash1283 1995

[14] R Duval and E H Kadri ldquoInfluence of silica fume on theworkability and the compressive strength of high-perfor-mance concretesrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 28no 4 pp 533ndash547 1998

[15] K H Khayat and P C Aitcin ldquoSilica fume a unique-supplementary cementitious materialrdquo in Mineral Admix-turesin Cement and Concrete S N Ghosh Ed pp 227ndash265ABI Books Private Limited New Delhi India 1993

[16] M Mazloom A A Ramezanianpour and J J Brooks ldquoEffectof silica fume on mechanical properties of high-strengthconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Composites vol 26 no 4pp 347ndash357 2004

[17] T K Erdem and O Kırca ldquoUse of binary and ternary blendsin high strength concreterdquo Construction and Building Ma-terials vol 22 no 7 pp 1477ndash1483 2008

[18] A Elahi P A M Basheer S V Nanukuttan andQ U Z Khan ldquoMechanical and durability properties of highperformance concretes containing supplementary cementi-tious materialsrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 24no 3 pp 292ndash299 2010

[19] Y Dang N Xie A Kessel E McVey A Pace and X ShildquoAccelerated laboratory evaluation of surface treatments forprotecting concrete bridge decks from salt scalingrdquo Con-struction and Building Materials vol 55 pp 128ndash135 2014

[20] J Zhang L Ding F Li and J Peng ldquoRecycled aggregates fromconstruction and demolition wastes as alternative fillingmaterials for highway subgrades in Chinardquo Journal of CleanerProduction vol 255 p 120223 2020

[21] J Zhang F Gu and Y Q Zhang ldquoUse of building-relatedconstruction and demolition wastes in highway embankmentlaboratory and field evaluationsrdquo Journal of Cleaner Pro-duction vol 230 pp 1051ndash1060 2019

[22] H Zhang ldquo)e effect of curing conditions on compressivestrength of ultra high strength concrete with high volumemineral admixturesrdquo Building and Environment vol 42pp 2083ndash2089 2007

[23] S-Y Hong and F P Glasser ldquoPhase relations in the CaO-SiO2-H2O system to 200degC at saturated steam pressurerdquoCement and Concrete Research vol 34 no 9 pp 1529ndash15342004

[24] M H Zhang C T Tam and M P Leow ldquoEffect of water-to-cementitious materials ratio and silica fume on the autoge-nous shrinkage of concreterdquo Cement and Concrete Researchvol 33 no 10 pp 1687ndash1694 2003

[25] H Li Z Yi and Y Xie ldquoProgress of silane impregnatingsurface treatment technology of concrete structurerdquoMaterialsReview vol 26 no 3 pp 120ndash125 2012

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

[26] Z D Rong W Sun H J Xiao and W Wang ldquoEffect of silicafume and fly ash on hydration and microstructure evolutionof cement based composites at low water-binder ratiosrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 51 pp 446ndash4502014

[27] M H F Medeiros and P Helene ldquoSurface treatment ofreinforced concrete in marine environment influence onchloride diffusion coefficient and capillary water absorptionrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 23 no 3pp 1476ndash1484 2009

16 Advances in Civil Engineering

Silica fumeSla

g

150180

190

150

180

170

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

170

220

150200

170

190

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Slag

Fly a

sh

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

145

145

185

175

175

155

165

135

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

195

225

205195

165

185

00 02 04 06 08 10

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 5 Flowability of UHPC with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (Sika)

Table 5 Compressive strength of UHPC

NumberCompressive strength (MPa)

M-PCE Sika3 d 28 d 3 d 28 d

N1 716 1074 748 1088N2 745 1009 821 1154N3 700 1155 837 1233N4 667 1163 644 1188N5 712 1014 804 1137N6 709 995 783 1074N7 647 1186 848 1269N8 769 1125 724 1138N9 810 1174 869 1156N10 793 1046 815 1015N11 776 1194 893 1169N12 800 1174 800 1125N13 858 1085 838 1062N14 827 1103 847 1179N15 864 1187 836 1091

8 Advances in Civil Engineering

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

102

102

106

118

104

104

116

114

106

112

108

110

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

104

108

118

110

110

112116114

102

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

118116

104

114

112

108

Slag

Fly a

sh

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

108116

109

112108

109

112

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 6 Compressive strength of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

119118

116

109

117

116 111

113

115

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

124123

113

122 121

120119118

117

114

115

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Figure 7 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

Sika was relatively simple in the molecular structure it couldalso be compatible with silicate cement and promote hydrationdue to its advanced compounding process As the silica fumecontent increased the early compressive strength of UHPCgradually increased however when silica fume contentexceeded 25 this trend slowed low Due to the high poz-zolanic activity and microaggregate effect of silica fume silicafume could improve the compressive strength of UHPCAmorphous SiO2 in silica fume reacts with calcium hydroxideproduced by cement hydration to form hydrated calciumsilicate (C-S-H) which could improve the early strength ofUHPC [16 17] It could be seen from Table 5 that when theamount of silica fume was greater than 25 the compressivestrength of UHPC (28d) increased slightly with the increase inthe amount of silica fume In addition it was found that theaddition of slag reduced the compressive strength of UHPC(3d) but increased the strength of UHPC (28h) )is wasbecause when silica fume and slag were mixed in a properproportion a suitable ratio of calcium to silicon (CS) could beproduced Previous studies had shown that in order to makeconcrete stronger the optimal composition of cementingmaterials depends on the fineness of siliceous materials and theratio of calcium to silicon [18] When the ratio of calcium tosilicon was 13 1 the strength of UHPC was greater than thatof silica fume [19]

34 Dry Shrinkage Under the cementation system of ce-ment-silica fume-slag-fly ash UHPC was prepared by usingM-PCE and Sika polycarboxylate respectively )e change indry shrinkage of UHPC for 28 d is shown in Figures 8 and 9

According to the 28-day dry shrinkage test results ofUHPC in Figures 8 and 9 the relationship between the 28-day dry shrinkage Y of UHPC prepared with M-PCE andSika as polycarboxylate and the composition of cementitiousmaterials was established as shown in the followingequation

Y(MminusPCE) 9X1 + 20X2 + 9X3 minus 8X4 minus 027X1X2

minus 006X1X3 + 017X1X4 + 072X2X3

+ 135X2X4 + 088X3X4 minus 00123X1X2X3

minus 00228X1X2X4 minus 0014X1X3X4

minus 08226X2X3X4 + 0015593X1X2X3X4

(8)

Y(Sika) 9X1 + 18X2 + 12X3 minus 15X4 minus 021X1X2

minus 001X1X3 minus 029X1X4 + 043X2X3+ 162X2X4 + 08896X3X4 minus 00071X1X2X3minus 00287X1X2X4 minus 00143X1X3X4minus 07467X2X3X4 + 0013826X1X2X3X4

(9)

From formulas (8)-(9) it could be seen that whenM-PCE and Sika were used silicate cement had the sameeffect on the drying shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) that is thecoefficients of X1 were the same In addition the coefficientsof X4 X1X2 X1X3 X1X2X3 X1X2X4 and X1X3X4 were allnegative indicating that the dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d)could be effectively reduced by only adding silicate cementand silica fume slag and fly ash

As could be seen from Figures 8 and 9 the dry shrinkagevalue of UHPC prepared byM-PCE was slightly greater thanthat of UHPC prepared by Sika Although the molecularstructure of M-PCE contained a large number of water-reducing groups (alcohol groups) it was the M-PCE mothersolution that was used in this experiment In contrast therewere still water-reducing groups in Sikarsquos molecular struc-ture which was more effective in reducing the surfacetension of pore solution [20])erefore the dry shrinkage ofUHPC prepared by Sika would be smaller than that ofUHPC prepared by M-PCE

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

126 122120

104

108

112

108

Slag

Fly a

sh

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

104

116

108 112

116

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 7 Compressive strength of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (Sika)

10 Advances in Civil Engineering

825

675800

800775

775700

725

750

2505 06 07 08 09 10

Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

855

755

805780

730

655

755730

680

705

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

850690

830

810790

710770

730750

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

800

625650

750

675700

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 8 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

770755

680

740740

710

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

7

750

625

775

725

750

700

725

650

675

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 9 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

)e incorporation of fly ash would refine the porestructure of mortar reduce the connectivity of pores andincrease the difficulty in water migration under dryingconditions which showed a positive effect on dryingshrinkage that is drying shrinkage would be greatly re-duced [21] )erefore it was found from Figures 8 and 9that the dry shrinkage of UHPC became much larger whensilica fume content was around 50 )is was because theeffect of silica fume on the drying shrinkage of UHPC wasmainly due to the volcanic ash effect Silica fume had highactivity and could react with the hydration productCa(OH)2 to form C-S-H gel which on the one hand notonly reduced the amount of flake crystal Ca(OH)2 andincreased the amount of C-S-H in cement but also on theother hand refines the pore size and improves the porestructure However C-S-H gel itself had a porous structureand would contract under dry conditions while Ca(OH)2was a crystal structure which generally would not contractAt the same time part of Ca(OH)2 was distributed in thevoid of C-S-H gel which had an inhibitory effect on itscontraction [22] )e pozzolanite reaction consumesCa(OH)2 in the cement which eliminates the restrictioneffect of Ca(OH)2 on C-S-H gel shrinkage )erefore itcould be deduced that the higher the reaction degree ofvolcanic ash the greater the drying shrinkage value of thecorresponding specimen)eoretically there was a positivecorrelation between the degree of ash reaction and thecontent of silica fume)erefore the incorporation of silicafume could enhance the dry shrinkage of UHPC

35 Autogenous Shrinkage Under the cementitious systemof cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash UHPC was prepared byusing M-PCE and Sika respectively and the autogenousshrinkage changes in prepared UHPC are shown in Fig-ures 10 and 11

According to the 3-day autogenous shrinkage test resultsof UHPC in Figures 10 and 11 the relation between 3-dayautogenous shrinkage Y of UHPCwith eitherM-PCE or Sikaand the composition of cementation material was estab-lished as shown in the following equation

Y(MminusPCE) 9X1 + 3X2 + 48X3 minus 61X4 + 038X1X2

minus 032X1X3 + 121X1X4 minus 4X2X3

minus 269X2X4 minus 007X3X4 + 006793X1X2X3

+ 005428X1X2X4 + 00098X1X3X4

+ 06089X2X3X4 minus 0010649X1X2X3X4

(10)

Y(Sika) 9X1 + 11X2 + 27X3 minus 78X4 + 081X1X2

minus 027X1X3 + 1579X1X4 minus 019X2X3minus 01X2X4 minus 201X3X4 + 00101X1X2X3+ 00108X1X2X4 + 00435X1X3X4+ 06575X2X3X4 minus 001182X1X2X3X4

(11)

From formulas (10)-(11) it could be seen that silicatecement had the same effect on the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC when either M-PCE or Sika was used that is thecoefficients of X1 were the same In addition the coeffi-cients of X4 X1X3 X2X3 X2X4 X3X4 and X1X2X3X4were all negative indicating the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC could be effectively reduced by either adding flyash silicate cement and slag silica fume and slag silicafume and fly ash or adding the four kinds of cementingmaterials )e other admixture measures all could in-crease the self-contraction of UHPC As could be seenfrom Figures 10 and 11 the influence of M-PCE on UHPCself-shrinking was almost the same as that of Sika onUHPC From the molecular perspective their molecular

790775

760745

700

730

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

550

500

750

550

650

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 9 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (Sika)

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

19001100

1500

1700

1400

16001500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1600 1100

1200

1600

1300

1300

1400

1400

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

1900

1000

1700

1200

1600

1400

1500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1800

1200

1700

13001400

1600

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 10 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

1900 1200

1400

1300

1800

1400

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1400

1500

1400

1800

1500

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 11 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

structure contains a large number of polyethylene glycolreduction groups which could effectively reduce thesurface tension of pore solution )erefore the autoge-nous shrinkage value of UHPC prepared by pure silicatecement was small

In addition we found that adding silica fume alonewould increase the autogenous shrinkage of UHPC whichwas consistent with the results in [23] )e main reasonscould be listed as follows (1) silica fume fineness waslarge and its unique filling effect could refine the porestructure of cement-based materials (2) Ca(OH)2 gen-erated in the early stage was not well grown and very smallin particle size After the addition of silica fume it waseasy to react quickly with silica fume to produce calciumsilicate hydrate with low CS ratio making the interfacebetween the unhydrated cement particles and calciumsilicate hydrate become more compact and uniform [24](3) when the content of silica fume was high the excesssilica fume could continue to react with the generated C-S-H to produce the outer layer of calcium silicate hydratewith a lower CS ratio making the structure of the ce-ment-based materials doped with silica fume more dense[25] )erefore silica fume could reduce the porosity andaverage pore size of UHPC Since the value of autogenousshrinkage was related to the capillary pressure of cement-based materials the capillary pressure was mainly relatedto its diameter )e greater the silica fume content thesmaller the capillary diameter the greater the capillarypressure the greater the value of autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC

Because the chemical shrinkage induced by pozzolanicreaction of slag was greater than that induced by cementhydration it was found that the effect of single dosage of slagon UHPCrsquos autogenous shrinkage was great Meanwhile theactivity and hydration degree of slag was greater than that ofsilicate cement which greatly promoted the growth ofcapillary negative pressure and increased the action area[26 27]

4 Conclusions

In this study pectiniform polycarboxylate was synthesized atroom temperature and its applications in UHPC includingflowability strength drying shrinkage and autogenousshrinkage were investigated )e following conclusionscould be obtained based on the above experimental resultsand discussion

(1) )e polysiloxane in molecular structure had bettercompatibility with silicate cement When eitherM-PCE or Sika was used the positive influence ofsilicate cement on the flowability of UHPC was thesame It is worth noting that the use of three or morecementitious materials had a negative synergisticeffect on the flowability of UHPC although this effectwas weak

(2) )ere was little difference in compressive strength ofHUPC prepared by M-PCE and Sika )e incor-poration of cement with silica fume and that ofcement with fly ash both had a positive effect on the28-day strength of UHPC

(3) )e incorporation of fly ash could effectively reducethe drying shrinkage and autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC In terms of dry shrinkage the dosage of silicafume and fly ash could effectively reduce the 28-daydry shrinkage of UHPC Other incorporationmethods would all increase the 28-day dry shrinkageof UHPC to varying degrees From the perspective ofautogenous shrinkage the incorporation of silicafume and slag that of silica fume and fly ash or thatof all four cementing materials could all effectivelyreduce the 3-day autogenous shrinkage of UHPC

Data Availability

All the data used during the study are available from thecorresponding author by request

1300

1500

14001800

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1500

1300

1600

14001500

1800

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 11 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (Sika)

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

Conflicts of Interest

)e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest

Authorsrsquo Contributions

Shuncheng Xiang conceptualized the study preparedmethodology investigated the study performed datacuration did formal analysis wrote the original draft andrevised the manuscript Yingli Gao administrated theproject obtained funding acquisition and supervised thestudy

Acknowledgments

)e authors gratefully acknowledge the financial supportfrom the National Natural Science Foundation of China(General Program 51978080) Civil Aviation Administrationof China (U1833127) Hunan Province Natural ScienceFoundation (2018JJ4016) Key Scientific Research Projects ofHunan Education Department (18A129) National Key RampDProgram of China (Grant number 2018YFB1600100) andOpen Fund (Grant number kfj190503) of Key Laboratory ofSpecial Environment Road Engineering of Hunan Province(Changsha University of Science amp Technology)

References

[1] P J Andersen D M Roy J M Gaidis and WR Grace andCompany ldquo)e effects of adsorption of superplasticizers onthe surface of cementrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 17no 5 pp 805ndash813 1987

[2] C-Z Li N-Q Feng Y-D Li and R-J Chen ldquoEffects ofpolyethlene oxide chains on the performance of poly-carboxylate-type water-reducersrdquo Cement and Concrete Re-search vol 35 no 5 pp 867ndash873 2005

[3] B He Y Gao L Qu K Duan W Zhou and G PeildquoCharacteristics analysis of self-luminescent cement-basedcomposite materials with self-cleaning effectrdquo Journal ofCleaner Production vol 225 pp 1169ndash1183 2019

[4] Y Gao L Qu B He K Dai Z Fang and R Zhu ldquoStudy oneffectiveness of anti-icing and deicing performance of super-hydrophobic asphalt concreterdquo Construction and BuildingMaterials vol 191 pp 270ndash280 2018

[5] C J Shi ldquoRecent development of PC superplasticizersrdquo inProceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on MixDesign Performance and Use of SCC pp 16ndash25 BeijingChina June 2009

[6] K R Duan Y L Gao H Yao et al ldquoComparison of per-formances of early aged pre-vibrated cement-stabilizedmacadam formed by different compactionsrdquo Constructionand Building Materials vol 239 2020

[7] P C Aitcin ldquo)e durability characteristics of high perfor-mance con-crete reviewrdquo Cement and Concrete Compositesvol 25 pp 409ndash420 2003

[8] M Jones R Dhir and J Gill ldquoConcrete surface treatmenteffect of exposure temperature on chloride diffusion resis-tancerdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 1pp 197ndash208 1995

[9] M Levi C Ferro D Regazzoli G Dotelli and A Lopresti ldquoComparative evaluation method of polymer sur-face treatments applied on high performance concreterdquo

Journal of Materials Science vol 37 no 22 pp 4881ndash48882002

[10] J L )ompson M R Silsbee P M Gill and B E ScheetzldquoCharacterization of silicate sealers on concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 27 no 10 pp 1561ndash1567 1997

[11] D A Kagi and K B Ren ldquoReduction of water absorption insilicate treated concrete by post-treatment with cationicsurfactantsrdquo Building and Environment vol 30 no 2pp 237ndash243 1995

[12] R P Khatri V Sirivivatnanon and W Gross ldquoEffect ofdifferent supplementary cementitious materials on mechan-ical properties of high performance concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 25 no 1 pp 209ndash220 1995

[13] B K Ganesh and P P V Surya ldquoEfficiency of silica fume inconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 6pp 1273ndash1283 1995

[14] R Duval and E H Kadri ldquoInfluence of silica fume on theworkability and the compressive strength of high-perfor-mance concretesrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 28no 4 pp 533ndash547 1998

[15] K H Khayat and P C Aitcin ldquoSilica fume a unique-supplementary cementitious materialrdquo in Mineral Admix-turesin Cement and Concrete S N Ghosh Ed pp 227ndash265ABI Books Private Limited New Delhi India 1993

[16] M Mazloom A A Ramezanianpour and J J Brooks ldquoEffectof silica fume on mechanical properties of high-strengthconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Composites vol 26 no 4pp 347ndash357 2004

[17] T K Erdem and O Kırca ldquoUse of binary and ternary blendsin high strength concreterdquo Construction and Building Ma-terials vol 22 no 7 pp 1477ndash1483 2008

[18] A Elahi P A M Basheer S V Nanukuttan andQ U Z Khan ldquoMechanical and durability properties of highperformance concretes containing supplementary cementi-tious materialsrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 24no 3 pp 292ndash299 2010

[19] Y Dang N Xie A Kessel E McVey A Pace and X ShildquoAccelerated laboratory evaluation of surface treatments forprotecting concrete bridge decks from salt scalingrdquo Con-struction and Building Materials vol 55 pp 128ndash135 2014

[20] J Zhang L Ding F Li and J Peng ldquoRecycled aggregates fromconstruction and demolition wastes as alternative fillingmaterials for highway subgrades in Chinardquo Journal of CleanerProduction vol 255 p 120223 2020

[21] J Zhang F Gu and Y Q Zhang ldquoUse of building-relatedconstruction and demolition wastes in highway embankmentlaboratory and field evaluationsrdquo Journal of Cleaner Pro-duction vol 230 pp 1051ndash1060 2019

[22] H Zhang ldquo)e effect of curing conditions on compressivestrength of ultra high strength concrete with high volumemineral admixturesrdquo Building and Environment vol 42pp 2083ndash2089 2007

[23] S-Y Hong and F P Glasser ldquoPhase relations in the CaO-SiO2-H2O system to 200degC at saturated steam pressurerdquoCement and Concrete Research vol 34 no 9 pp 1529ndash15342004

[24] M H Zhang C T Tam and M P Leow ldquoEffect of water-to-cementitious materials ratio and silica fume on the autoge-nous shrinkage of concreterdquo Cement and Concrete Researchvol 33 no 10 pp 1687ndash1694 2003

[25] H Li Z Yi and Y Xie ldquoProgress of silane impregnatingsurface treatment technology of concrete structurerdquoMaterialsReview vol 26 no 3 pp 120ndash125 2012

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

[26] Z D Rong W Sun H J Xiao and W Wang ldquoEffect of silicafume and fly ash on hydration and microstructure evolutionof cement based composites at low water-binder ratiosrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 51 pp 446ndash4502014

[27] M H F Medeiros and P Helene ldquoSurface treatment ofreinforced concrete in marine environment influence onchloride diffusion coefficient and capillary water absorptionrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 23 no 3pp 1476ndash1484 2009

16 Advances in Civil Engineering

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

102

102

106

118

104

104

116

114

106

112

108

110

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

104

108

118

110

110

112116114

102

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

118116

104

114

112

108

Slag

Fly a

sh

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

108116

109

112108

109

112

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 6 Compressive strength of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

119118

116

109

117

116 111

113

115

Silica fumeSla

g

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(a)

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

124123

113

122 121

120119118

117

114

115

Silica fumeFl

y ash

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

(b)

Figure 7 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 9

Sika was relatively simple in the molecular structure it couldalso be compatible with silicate cement and promote hydrationdue to its advanced compounding process As the silica fumecontent increased the early compressive strength of UHPCgradually increased however when silica fume contentexceeded 25 this trend slowed low Due to the high poz-zolanic activity and microaggregate effect of silica fume silicafume could improve the compressive strength of UHPCAmorphous SiO2 in silica fume reacts with calcium hydroxideproduced by cement hydration to form hydrated calciumsilicate (C-S-H) which could improve the early strength ofUHPC [16 17] It could be seen from Table 5 that when theamount of silica fume was greater than 25 the compressivestrength of UHPC (28d) increased slightly with the increase inthe amount of silica fume In addition it was found that theaddition of slag reduced the compressive strength of UHPC(3d) but increased the strength of UHPC (28h) )is wasbecause when silica fume and slag were mixed in a properproportion a suitable ratio of calcium to silicon (CS) could beproduced Previous studies had shown that in order to makeconcrete stronger the optimal composition of cementingmaterials depends on the fineness of siliceous materials and theratio of calcium to silicon [18] When the ratio of calcium tosilicon was 13 1 the strength of UHPC was greater than thatof silica fume [19]

34 Dry Shrinkage Under the cementation system of ce-ment-silica fume-slag-fly ash UHPC was prepared by usingM-PCE and Sika polycarboxylate respectively )e change indry shrinkage of UHPC for 28 d is shown in Figures 8 and 9

According to the 28-day dry shrinkage test results ofUHPC in Figures 8 and 9 the relationship between the 28-day dry shrinkage Y of UHPC prepared with M-PCE andSika as polycarboxylate and the composition of cementitiousmaterials was established as shown in the followingequation

Y(MminusPCE) 9X1 + 20X2 + 9X3 minus 8X4 minus 027X1X2

minus 006X1X3 + 017X1X4 + 072X2X3

+ 135X2X4 + 088X3X4 minus 00123X1X2X3

minus 00228X1X2X4 minus 0014X1X3X4

minus 08226X2X3X4 + 0015593X1X2X3X4

(8)

Y(Sika) 9X1 + 18X2 + 12X3 minus 15X4 minus 021X1X2

minus 001X1X3 minus 029X1X4 + 043X2X3+ 162X2X4 + 08896X3X4 minus 00071X1X2X3minus 00287X1X2X4 minus 00143X1X3X4minus 07467X2X3X4 + 0013826X1X2X3X4

(9)

From formulas (8)-(9) it could be seen that whenM-PCE and Sika were used silicate cement had the sameeffect on the drying shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) that is thecoefficients of X1 were the same In addition the coefficientsof X4 X1X2 X1X3 X1X2X3 X1X2X4 and X1X3X4 were allnegative indicating that the dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d)could be effectively reduced by only adding silicate cementand silica fume slag and fly ash

As could be seen from Figures 8 and 9 the dry shrinkagevalue of UHPC prepared byM-PCE was slightly greater thanthat of UHPC prepared by Sika Although the molecularstructure of M-PCE contained a large number of water-reducing groups (alcohol groups) it was the M-PCE mothersolution that was used in this experiment In contrast therewere still water-reducing groups in Sikarsquos molecular struc-ture which was more effective in reducing the surfacetension of pore solution [20])erefore the dry shrinkage ofUHPC prepared by Sika would be smaller than that ofUHPC prepared by M-PCE

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

126 122120

104

108

112

108

Slag

Fly a

sh

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

104

116

108 112

116

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 7 Compressive strength of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (Sika)

10 Advances in Civil Engineering

825

675800

800775

775700

725

750

2505 06 07 08 09 10

Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

855

755

805780

730

655

755730

680

705

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

850690

830

810790

710770

730750

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

800

625650

750

675700

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 8 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

770755

680

740740

710

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

7

750

625

775

725

750

700

725

650

675

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 9 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

)e incorporation of fly ash would refine the porestructure of mortar reduce the connectivity of pores andincrease the difficulty in water migration under dryingconditions which showed a positive effect on dryingshrinkage that is drying shrinkage would be greatly re-duced [21] )erefore it was found from Figures 8 and 9that the dry shrinkage of UHPC became much larger whensilica fume content was around 50 )is was because theeffect of silica fume on the drying shrinkage of UHPC wasmainly due to the volcanic ash effect Silica fume had highactivity and could react with the hydration productCa(OH)2 to form C-S-H gel which on the one hand notonly reduced the amount of flake crystal Ca(OH)2 andincreased the amount of C-S-H in cement but also on theother hand refines the pore size and improves the porestructure However C-S-H gel itself had a porous structureand would contract under dry conditions while Ca(OH)2was a crystal structure which generally would not contractAt the same time part of Ca(OH)2 was distributed in thevoid of C-S-H gel which had an inhibitory effect on itscontraction [22] )e pozzolanite reaction consumesCa(OH)2 in the cement which eliminates the restrictioneffect of Ca(OH)2 on C-S-H gel shrinkage )erefore itcould be deduced that the higher the reaction degree ofvolcanic ash the greater the drying shrinkage value of thecorresponding specimen)eoretically there was a positivecorrelation between the degree of ash reaction and thecontent of silica fume)erefore the incorporation of silicafume could enhance the dry shrinkage of UHPC

35 Autogenous Shrinkage Under the cementitious systemof cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash UHPC was prepared byusing M-PCE and Sika respectively and the autogenousshrinkage changes in prepared UHPC are shown in Fig-ures 10 and 11

According to the 3-day autogenous shrinkage test resultsof UHPC in Figures 10 and 11 the relation between 3-dayautogenous shrinkage Y of UHPCwith eitherM-PCE or Sikaand the composition of cementation material was estab-lished as shown in the following equation

Y(MminusPCE) 9X1 + 3X2 + 48X3 minus 61X4 + 038X1X2

minus 032X1X3 + 121X1X4 minus 4X2X3

minus 269X2X4 minus 007X3X4 + 006793X1X2X3

+ 005428X1X2X4 + 00098X1X3X4

+ 06089X2X3X4 minus 0010649X1X2X3X4

(10)

Y(Sika) 9X1 + 11X2 + 27X3 minus 78X4 + 081X1X2

minus 027X1X3 + 1579X1X4 minus 019X2X3minus 01X2X4 minus 201X3X4 + 00101X1X2X3+ 00108X1X2X4 + 00435X1X3X4+ 06575X2X3X4 minus 001182X1X2X3X4

(11)

From formulas (10)-(11) it could be seen that silicatecement had the same effect on the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC when either M-PCE or Sika was used that is thecoefficients of X1 were the same In addition the coeffi-cients of X4 X1X3 X2X3 X2X4 X3X4 and X1X2X3X4were all negative indicating the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC could be effectively reduced by either adding flyash silicate cement and slag silica fume and slag silicafume and fly ash or adding the four kinds of cementingmaterials )e other admixture measures all could in-crease the self-contraction of UHPC As could be seenfrom Figures 10 and 11 the influence of M-PCE on UHPCself-shrinking was almost the same as that of Sika onUHPC From the molecular perspective their molecular

790775

760745

700

730

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

550

500

750

550

650

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 9 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (Sika)

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

19001100

1500

1700

1400

16001500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1600 1100

1200

1600

1300

1300

1400

1400

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

1900

1000

1700

1200

1600

1400

1500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1800

1200

1700

13001400

1600

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 10 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

1900 1200

1400

1300

1800

1400

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1400

1500

1400

1800

1500

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 11 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

structure contains a large number of polyethylene glycolreduction groups which could effectively reduce thesurface tension of pore solution )erefore the autoge-nous shrinkage value of UHPC prepared by pure silicatecement was small

In addition we found that adding silica fume alonewould increase the autogenous shrinkage of UHPC whichwas consistent with the results in [23] )e main reasonscould be listed as follows (1) silica fume fineness waslarge and its unique filling effect could refine the porestructure of cement-based materials (2) Ca(OH)2 gen-erated in the early stage was not well grown and very smallin particle size After the addition of silica fume it waseasy to react quickly with silica fume to produce calciumsilicate hydrate with low CS ratio making the interfacebetween the unhydrated cement particles and calciumsilicate hydrate become more compact and uniform [24](3) when the content of silica fume was high the excesssilica fume could continue to react with the generated C-S-H to produce the outer layer of calcium silicate hydratewith a lower CS ratio making the structure of the ce-ment-based materials doped with silica fume more dense[25] )erefore silica fume could reduce the porosity andaverage pore size of UHPC Since the value of autogenousshrinkage was related to the capillary pressure of cement-based materials the capillary pressure was mainly relatedto its diameter )e greater the silica fume content thesmaller the capillary diameter the greater the capillarypressure the greater the value of autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC

Because the chemical shrinkage induced by pozzolanicreaction of slag was greater than that induced by cementhydration it was found that the effect of single dosage of slagon UHPCrsquos autogenous shrinkage was great Meanwhile theactivity and hydration degree of slag was greater than that ofsilicate cement which greatly promoted the growth ofcapillary negative pressure and increased the action area[26 27]

4 Conclusions

In this study pectiniform polycarboxylate was synthesized atroom temperature and its applications in UHPC includingflowability strength drying shrinkage and autogenousshrinkage were investigated )e following conclusionscould be obtained based on the above experimental resultsand discussion

(1) )e polysiloxane in molecular structure had bettercompatibility with silicate cement When eitherM-PCE or Sika was used the positive influence ofsilicate cement on the flowability of UHPC was thesame It is worth noting that the use of three or morecementitious materials had a negative synergisticeffect on the flowability of UHPC although this effectwas weak

(2) )ere was little difference in compressive strength ofHUPC prepared by M-PCE and Sika )e incor-poration of cement with silica fume and that ofcement with fly ash both had a positive effect on the28-day strength of UHPC

(3) )e incorporation of fly ash could effectively reducethe drying shrinkage and autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC In terms of dry shrinkage the dosage of silicafume and fly ash could effectively reduce the 28-daydry shrinkage of UHPC Other incorporationmethods would all increase the 28-day dry shrinkageof UHPC to varying degrees From the perspective ofautogenous shrinkage the incorporation of silicafume and slag that of silica fume and fly ash or thatof all four cementing materials could all effectivelyreduce the 3-day autogenous shrinkage of UHPC

Data Availability

All the data used during the study are available from thecorresponding author by request

1300

1500

14001800

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1500

1300

1600

14001500

1800

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 11 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (Sika)

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

Conflicts of Interest

)e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest

Authorsrsquo Contributions

Shuncheng Xiang conceptualized the study preparedmethodology investigated the study performed datacuration did formal analysis wrote the original draft andrevised the manuscript Yingli Gao administrated theproject obtained funding acquisition and supervised thestudy

Acknowledgments

)e authors gratefully acknowledge the financial supportfrom the National Natural Science Foundation of China(General Program 51978080) Civil Aviation Administrationof China (U1833127) Hunan Province Natural ScienceFoundation (2018JJ4016) Key Scientific Research Projects ofHunan Education Department (18A129) National Key RampDProgram of China (Grant number 2018YFB1600100) andOpen Fund (Grant number kfj190503) of Key Laboratory ofSpecial Environment Road Engineering of Hunan Province(Changsha University of Science amp Technology)

References

[1] P J Andersen D M Roy J M Gaidis and WR Grace andCompany ldquo)e effects of adsorption of superplasticizers onthe surface of cementrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 17no 5 pp 805ndash813 1987

[2] C-Z Li N-Q Feng Y-D Li and R-J Chen ldquoEffects ofpolyethlene oxide chains on the performance of poly-carboxylate-type water-reducersrdquo Cement and Concrete Re-search vol 35 no 5 pp 867ndash873 2005

[3] B He Y Gao L Qu K Duan W Zhou and G PeildquoCharacteristics analysis of self-luminescent cement-basedcomposite materials with self-cleaning effectrdquo Journal ofCleaner Production vol 225 pp 1169ndash1183 2019

[4] Y Gao L Qu B He K Dai Z Fang and R Zhu ldquoStudy oneffectiveness of anti-icing and deicing performance of super-hydrophobic asphalt concreterdquo Construction and BuildingMaterials vol 191 pp 270ndash280 2018

[5] C J Shi ldquoRecent development of PC superplasticizersrdquo inProceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on MixDesign Performance and Use of SCC pp 16ndash25 BeijingChina June 2009

[6] K R Duan Y L Gao H Yao et al ldquoComparison of per-formances of early aged pre-vibrated cement-stabilizedmacadam formed by different compactionsrdquo Constructionand Building Materials vol 239 2020

[7] P C Aitcin ldquo)e durability characteristics of high perfor-mance con-crete reviewrdquo Cement and Concrete Compositesvol 25 pp 409ndash420 2003

[8] M Jones R Dhir and J Gill ldquoConcrete surface treatmenteffect of exposure temperature on chloride diffusion resis-tancerdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 1pp 197ndash208 1995

[9] M Levi C Ferro D Regazzoli G Dotelli and A Lopresti ldquoComparative evaluation method of polymer sur-face treatments applied on high performance concreterdquo

Journal of Materials Science vol 37 no 22 pp 4881ndash48882002

[10] J L )ompson M R Silsbee P M Gill and B E ScheetzldquoCharacterization of silicate sealers on concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 27 no 10 pp 1561ndash1567 1997

[11] D A Kagi and K B Ren ldquoReduction of water absorption insilicate treated concrete by post-treatment with cationicsurfactantsrdquo Building and Environment vol 30 no 2pp 237ndash243 1995

[12] R P Khatri V Sirivivatnanon and W Gross ldquoEffect ofdifferent supplementary cementitious materials on mechan-ical properties of high performance concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 25 no 1 pp 209ndash220 1995

[13] B K Ganesh and P P V Surya ldquoEfficiency of silica fume inconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 6pp 1273ndash1283 1995

[14] R Duval and E H Kadri ldquoInfluence of silica fume on theworkability and the compressive strength of high-perfor-mance concretesrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 28no 4 pp 533ndash547 1998

[15] K H Khayat and P C Aitcin ldquoSilica fume a unique-supplementary cementitious materialrdquo in Mineral Admix-turesin Cement and Concrete S N Ghosh Ed pp 227ndash265ABI Books Private Limited New Delhi India 1993

[16] M Mazloom A A Ramezanianpour and J J Brooks ldquoEffectof silica fume on mechanical properties of high-strengthconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Composites vol 26 no 4pp 347ndash357 2004

[17] T K Erdem and O Kırca ldquoUse of binary and ternary blendsin high strength concreterdquo Construction and Building Ma-terials vol 22 no 7 pp 1477ndash1483 2008

[18] A Elahi P A M Basheer S V Nanukuttan andQ U Z Khan ldquoMechanical and durability properties of highperformance concretes containing supplementary cementi-tious materialsrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 24no 3 pp 292ndash299 2010

[19] Y Dang N Xie A Kessel E McVey A Pace and X ShildquoAccelerated laboratory evaluation of surface treatments forprotecting concrete bridge decks from salt scalingrdquo Con-struction and Building Materials vol 55 pp 128ndash135 2014

[20] J Zhang L Ding F Li and J Peng ldquoRecycled aggregates fromconstruction and demolition wastes as alternative fillingmaterials for highway subgrades in Chinardquo Journal of CleanerProduction vol 255 p 120223 2020

[21] J Zhang F Gu and Y Q Zhang ldquoUse of building-relatedconstruction and demolition wastes in highway embankmentlaboratory and field evaluationsrdquo Journal of Cleaner Pro-duction vol 230 pp 1051ndash1060 2019

[22] H Zhang ldquo)e effect of curing conditions on compressivestrength of ultra high strength concrete with high volumemineral admixturesrdquo Building and Environment vol 42pp 2083ndash2089 2007

[23] S-Y Hong and F P Glasser ldquoPhase relations in the CaO-SiO2-H2O system to 200degC at saturated steam pressurerdquoCement and Concrete Research vol 34 no 9 pp 1529ndash15342004

[24] M H Zhang C T Tam and M P Leow ldquoEffect of water-to-cementitious materials ratio and silica fume on the autoge-nous shrinkage of concreterdquo Cement and Concrete Researchvol 33 no 10 pp 1687ndash1694 2003

[25] H Li Z Yi and Y Xie ldquoProgress of silane impregnatingsurface treatment technology of concrete structurerdquoMaterialsReview vol 26 no 3 pp 120ndash125 2012

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

[26] Z D Rong W Sun H J Xiao and W Wang ldquoEffect of silicafume and fly ash on hydration and microstructure evolutionof cement based composites at low water-binder ratiosrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 51 pp 446ndash4502014

[27] M H F Medeiros and P Helene ldquoSurface treatment ofreinforced concrete in marine environment influence onchloride diffusion coefficient and capillary water absorptionrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 23 no 3pp 1476ndash1484 2009

16 Advances in Civil Engineering

Sika was relatively simple in the molecular structure it couldalso be compatible with silicate cement and promote hydrationdue to its advanced compounding process As the silica fumecontent increased the early compressive strength of UHPCgradually increased however when silica fume contentexceeded 25 this trend slowed low Due to the high poz-zolanic activity and microaggregate effect of silica fume silicafume could improve the compressive strength of UHPCAmorphous SiO2 in silica fume reacts with calcium hydroxideproduced by cement hydration to form hydrated calciumsilicate (C-S-H) which could improve the early strength ofUHPC [16 17] It could be seen from Table 5 that when theamount of silica fume was greater than 25 the compressivestrength of UHPC (28d) increased slightly with the increase inthe amount of silica fume In addition it was found that theaddition of slag reduced the compressive strength of UHPC(3d) but increased the strength of UHPC (28h) )is wasbecause when silica fume and slag were mixed in a properproportion a suitable ratio of calcium to silicon (CS) could beproduced Previous studies had shown that in order to makeconcrete stronger the optimal composition of cementingmaterials depends on the fineness of siliceous materials and theratio of calcium to silicon [18] When the ratio of calcium tosilicon was 13 1 the strength of UHPC was greater than thatof silica fume [19]

34 Dry Shrinkage Under the cementation system of ce-ment-silica fume-slag-fly ash UHPC was prepared by usingM-PCE and Sika polycarboxylate respectively )e change indry shrinkage of UHPC for 28 d is shown in Figures 8 and 9

According to the 28-day dry shrinkage test results ofUHPC in Figures 8 and 9 the relationship between the 28-day dry shrinkage Y of UHPC prepared with M-PCE andSika as polycarboxylate and the composition of cementitiousmaterials was established as shown in the followingequation

Y(MminusPCE) 9X1 + 20X2 + 9X3 minus 8X4 minus 027X1X2

minus 006X1X3 + 017X1X4 + 072X2X3

+ 135X2X4 + 088X3X4 minus 00123X1X2X3

minus 00228X1X2X4 minus 0014X1X3X4

minus 08226X2X3X4 + 0015593X1X2X3X4

(8)

Y(Sika) 9X1 + 18X2 + 12X3 minus 15X4 minus 021X1X2

minus 001X1X3 minus 029X1X4 + 043X2X3+ 162X2X4 + 08896X3X4 minus 00071X1X2X3minus 00287X1X2X4 minus 00143X1X3X4minus 07467X2X3X4 + 0013826X1X2X3X4

(9)

From formulas (8)-(9) it could be seen that whenM-PCE and Sika were used silicate cement had the sameeffect on the drying shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) that is thecoefficients of X1 were the same In addition the coefficientsof X4 X1X2 X1X3 X1X2X3 X1X2X4 and X1X3X4 were allnegative indicating that the dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d)could be effectively reduced by only adding silicate cementand silica fume slag and fly ash

As could be seen from Figures 8 and 9 the dry shrinkagevalue of UHPC prepared byM-PCE was slightly greater thanthat of UHPC prepared by Sika Although the molecularstructure of M-PCE contained a large number of water-reducing groups (alcohol groups) it was the M-PCE mothersolution that was used in this experiment In contrast therewere still water-reducing groups in Sikarsquos molecular struc-ture which was more effective in reducing the surfacetension of pore solution [20])erefore the dry shrinkage ofUHPC prepared by Sika would be smaller than that ofUHPC prepared by M-PCE

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

126 122120

104

108

112

108

Slag

Fly a

sh

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

(c)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

104

116

108 112

116

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

(d)

Figure 7 Compressive strength of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (Sika)

10 Advances in Civil Engineering

825

675800

800775

775700

725

750

2505 06 07 08 09 10

Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

855

755

805780

730

655

755730

680

705

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

850690

830

810790

710770

730750

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

800

625650

750

675700

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 8 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

770755

680

740740

710

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

7

750

625

775

725

750

700

725

650

675

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 9 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

)e incorporation of fly ash would refine the porestructure of mortar reduce the connectivity of pores andincrease the difficulty in water migration under dryingconditions which showed a positive effect on dryingshrinkage that is drying shrinkage would be greatly re-duced [21] )erefore it was found from Figures 8 and 9that the dry shrinkage of UHPC became much larger whensilica fume content was around 50 )is was because theeffect of silica fume on the drying shrinkage of UHPC wasmainly due to the volcanic ash effect Silica fume had highactivity and could react with the hydration productCa(OH)2 to form C-S-H gel which on the one hand notonly reduced the amount of flake crystal Ca(OH)2 andincreased the amount of C-S-H in cement but also on theother hand refines the pore size and improves the porestructure However C-S-H gel itself had a porous structureand would contract under dry conditions while Ca(OH)2was a crystal structure which generally would not contractAt the same time part of Ca(OH)2 was distributed in thevoid of C-S-H gel which had an inhibitory effect on itscontraction [22] )e pozzolanite reaction consumesCa(OH)2 in the cement which eliminates the restrictioneffect of Ca(OH)2 on C-S-H gel shrinkage )erefore itcould be deduced that the higher the reaction degree ofvolcanic ash the greater the drying shrinkage value of thecorresponding specimen)eoretically there was a positivecorrelation between the degree of ash reaction and thecontent of silica fume)erefore the incorporation of silicafume could enhance the dry shrinkage of UHPC

35 Autogenous Shrinkage Under the cementitious systemof cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash UHPC was prepared byusing M-PCE and Sika respectively and the autogenousshrinkage changes in prepared UHPC are shown in Fig-ures 10 and 11

According to the 3-day autogenous shrinkage test resultsof UHPC in Figures 10 and 11 the relation between 3-dayautogenous shrinkage Y of UHPCwith eitherM-PCE or Sikaand the composition of cementation material was estab-lished as shown in the following equation

Y(MminusPCE) 9X1 + 3X2 + 48X3 minus 61X4 + 038X1X2

minus 032X1X3 + 121X1X4 minus 4X2X3

minus 269X2X4 minus 007X3X4 + 006793X1X2X3

+ 005428X1X2X4 + 00098X1X3X4

+ 06089X2X3X4 minus 0010649X1X2X3X4

(10)

Y(Sika) 9X1 + 11X2 + 27X3 minus 78X4 + 081X1X2

minus 027X1X3 + 1579X1X4 minus 019X2X3minus 01X2X4 minus 201X3X4 + 00101X1X2X3+ 00108X1X2X4 + 00435X1X3X4+ 06575X2X3X4 minus 001182X1X2X3X4

(11)

From formulas (10)-(11) it could be seen that silicatecement had the same effect on the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC when either M-PCE or Sika was used that is thecoefficients of X1 were the same In addition the coeffi-cients of X4 X1X3 X2X3 X2X4 X3X4 and X1X2X3X4were all negative indicating the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC could be effectively reduced by either adding flyash silicate cement and slag silica fume and slag silicafume and fly ash or adding the four kinds of cementingmaterials )e other admixture measures all could in-crease the self-contraction of UHPC As could be seenfrom Figures 10 and 11 the influence of M-PCE on UHPCself-shrinking was almost the same as that of Sika onUHPC From the molecular perspective their molecular

790775

760745

700

730

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

550

500

750

550

650

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 9 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (Sika)

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

19001100

1500

1700

1400

16001500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1600 1100

1200

1600

1300

1300

1400

1400

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

1900

1000

1700

1200

1600

1400

1500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1800

1200

1700

13001400

1600

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 10 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

1900 1200

1400

1300

1800

1400

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1400

1500

1400

1800

1500

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 11 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

structure contains a large number of polyethylene glycolreduction groups which could effectively reduce thesurface tension of pore solution )erefore the autoge-nous shrinkage value of UHPC prepared by pure silicatecement was small

In addition we found that adding silica fume alonewould increase the autogenous shrinkage of UHPC whichwas consistent with the results in [23] )e main reasonscould be listed as follows (1) silica fume fineness waslarge and its unique filling effect could refine the porestructure of cement-based materials (2) Ca(OH)2 gen-erated in the early stage was not well grown and very smallin particle size After the addition of silica fume it waseasy to react quickly with silica fume to produce calciumsilicate hydrate with low CS ratio making the interfacebetween the unhydrated cement particles and calciumsilicate hydrate become more compact and uniform [24](3) when the content of silica fume was high the excesssilica fume could continue to react with the generated C-S-H to produce the outer layer of calcium silicate hydratewith a lower CS ratio making the structure of the ce-ment-based materials doped with silica fume more dense[25] )erefore silica fume could reduce the porosity andaverage pore size of UHPC Since the value of autogenousshrinkage was related to the capillary pressure of cement-based materials the capillary pressure was mainly relatedto its diameter )e greater the silica fume content thesmaller the capillary diameter the greater the capillarypressure the greater the value of autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC

Because the chemical shrinkage induced by pozzolanicreaction of slag was greater than that induced by cementhydration it was found that the effect of single dosage of slagon UHPCrsquos autogenous shrinkage was great Meanwhile theactivity and hydration degree of slag was greater than that ofsilicate cement which greatly promoted the growth ofcapillary negative pressure and increased the action area[26 27]

4 Conclusions

In this study pectiniform polycarboxylate was synthesized atroom temperature and its applications in UHPC includingflowability strength drying shrinkage and autogenousshrinkage were investigated )e following conclusionscould be obtained based on the above experimental resultsand discussion

(1) )e polysiloxane in molecular structure had bettercompatibility with silicate cement When eitherM-PCE or Sika was used the positive influence ofsilicate cement on the flowability of UHPC was thesame It is worth noting that the use of three or morecementitious materials had a negative synergisticeffect on the flowability of UHPC although this effectwas weak

(2) )ere was little difference in compressive strength ofHUPC prepared by M-PCE and Sika )e incor-poration of cement with silica fume and that ofcement with fly ash both had a positive effect on the28-day strength of UHPC

(3) )e incorporation of fly ash could effectively reducethe drying shrinkage and autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC In terms of dry shrinkage the dosage of silicafume and fly ash could effectively reduce the 28-daydry shrinkage of UHPC Other incorporationmethods would all increase the 28-day dry shrinkageof UHPC to varying degrees From the perspective ofautogenous shrinkage the incorporation of silicafume and slag that of silica fume and fly ash or thatof all four cementing materials could all effectivelyreduce the 3-day autogenous shrinkage of UHPC

Data Availability

All the data used during the study are available from thecorresponding author by request

1300

1500

14001800

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1500

1300

1600

14001500

1800

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 11 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (Sika)

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

Conflicts of Interest

)e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest

Authorsrsquo Contributions

Shuncheng Xiang conceptualized the study preparedmethodology investigated the study performed datacuration did formal analysis wrote the original draft andrevised the manuscript Yingli Gao administrated theproject obtained funding acquisition and supervised thestudy

Acknowledgments

)e authors gratefully acknowledge the financial supportfrom the National Natural Science Foundation of China(General Program 51978080) Civil Aviation Administrationof China (U1833127) Hunan Province Natural ScienceFoundation (2018JJ4016) Key Scientific Research Projects ofHunan Education Department (18A129) National Key RampDProgram of China (Grant number 2018YFB1600100) andOpen Fund (Grant number kfj190503) of Key Laboratory ofSpecial Environment Road Engineering of Hunan Province(Changsha University of Science amp Technology)

References

[1] P J Andersen D M Roy J M Gaidis and WR Grace andCompany ldquo)e effects of adsorption of superplasticizers onthe surface of cementrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 17no 5 pp 805ndash813 1987

[2] C-Z Li N-Q Feng Y-D Li and R-J Chen ldquoEffects ofpolyethlene oxide chains on the performance of poly-carboxylate-type water-reducersrdquo Cement and Concrete Re-search vol 35 no 5 pp 867ndash873 2005

[3] B He Y Gao L Qu K Duan W Zhou and G PeildquoCharacteristics analysis of self-luminescent cement-basedcomposite materials with self-cleaning effectrdquo Journal ofCleaner Production vol 225 pp 1169ndash1183 2019

[4] Y Gao L Qu B He K Dai Z Fang and R Zhu ldquoStudy oneffectiveness of anti-icing and deicing performance of super-hydrophobic asphalt concreterdquo Construction and BuildingMaterials vol 191 pp 270ndash280 2018

[5] C J Shi ldquoRecent development of PC superplasticizersrdquo inProceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on MixDesign Performance and Use of SCC pp 16ndash25 BeijingChina June 2009

[6] K R Duan Y L Gao H Yao et al ldquoComparison of per-formances of early aged pre-vibrated cement-stabilizedmacadam formed by different compactionsrdquo Constructionand Building Materials vol 239 2020

[7] P C Aitcin ldquo)e durability characteristics of high perfor-mance con-crete reviewrdquo Cement and Concrete Compositesvol 25 pp 409ndash420 2003

[8] M Jones R Dhir and J Gill ldquoConcrete surface treatmenteffect of exposure temperature on chloride diffusion resis-tancerdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 1pp 197ndash208 1995

[9] M Levi C Ferro D Regazzoli G Dotelli and A Lopresti ldquoComparative evaluation method of polymer sur-face treatments applied on high performance concreterdquo

Journal of Materials Science vol 37 no 22 pp 4881ndash48882002

[10] J L )ompson M R Silsbee P M Gill and B E ScheetzldquoCharacterization of silicate sealers on concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 27 no 10 pp 1561ndash1567 1997

[11] D A Kagi and K B Ren ldquoReduction of water absorption insilicate treated concrete by post-treatment with cationicsurfactantsrdquo Building and Environment vol 30 no 2pp 237ndash243 1995

[12] R P Khatri V Sirivivatnanon and W Gross ldquoEffect ofdifferent supplementary cementitious materials on mechan-ical properties of high performance concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 25 no 1 pp 209ndash220 1995

[13] B K Ganesh and P P V Surya ldquoEfficiency of silica fume inconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 6pp 1273ndash1283 1995

[14] R Duval and E H Kadri ldquoInfluence of silica fume on theworkability and the compressive strength of high-perfor-mance concretesrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 28no 4 pp 533ndash547 1998

[15] K H Khayat and P C Aitcin ldquoSilica fume a unique-supplementary cementitious materialrdquo in Mineral Admix-turesin Cement and Concrete S N Ghosh Ed pp 227ndash265ABI Books Private Limited New Delhi India 1993

[16] M Mazloom A A Ramezanianpour and J J Brooks ldquoEffectof silica fume on mechanical properties of high-strengthconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Composites vol 26 no 4pp 347ndash357 2004

[17] T K Erdem and O Kırca ldquoUse of binary and ternary blendsin high strength concreterdquo Construction and Building Ma-terials vol 22 no 7 pp 1477ndash1483 2008

[18] A Elahi P A M Basheer S V Nanukuttan andQ U Z Khan ldquoMechanical and durability properties of highperformance concretes containing supplementary cementi-tious materialsrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 24no 3 pp 292ndash299 2010

[19] Y Dang N Xie A Kessel E McVey A Pace and X ShildquoAccelerated laboratory evaluation of surface treatments forprotecting concrete bridge decks from salt scalingrdquo Con-struction and Building Materials vol 55 pp 128ndash135 2014

[20] J Zhang L Ding F Li and J Peng ldquoRecycled aggregates fromconstruction and demolition wastes as alternative fillingmaterials for highway subgrades in Chinardquo Journal of CleanerProduction vol 255 p 120223 2020

[21] J Zhang F Gu and Y Q Zhang ldquoUse of building-relatedconstruction and demolition wastes in highway embankmentlaboratory and field evaluationsrdquo Journal of Cleaner Pro-duction vol 230 pp 1051ndash1060 2019

[22] H Zhang ldquo)e effect of curing conditions on compressivestrength of ultra high strength concrete with high volumemineral admixturesrdquo Building and Environment vol 42pp 2083ndash2089 2007

[23] S-Y Hong and F P Glasser ldquoPhase relations in the CaO-SiO2-H2O system to 200degC at saturated steam pressurerdquoCement and Concrete Research vol 34 no 9 pp 1529ndash15342004

[24] M H Zhang C T Tam and M P Leow ldquoEffect of water-to-cementitious materials ratio and silica fume on the autoge-nous shrinkage of concreterdquo Cement and Concrete Researchvol 33 no 10 pp 1687ndash1694 2003

[25] H Li Z Yi and Y Xie ldquoProgress of silane impregnatingsurface treatment technology of concrete structurerdquoMaterialsReview vol 26 no 3 pp 120ndash125 2012

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

[26] Z D Rong W Sun H J Xiao and W Wang ldquoEffect of silicafume and fly ash on hydration and microstructure evolutionof cement based composites at low water-binder ratiosrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 51 pp 446ndash4502014

[27] M H F Medeiros and P Helene ldquoSurface treatment ofreinforced concrete in marine environment influence onchloride diffusion coefficient and capillary water absorptionrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 23 no 3pp 1476ndash1484 2009

16 Advances in Civil Engineering

825

675800

800775

775700

725

750

2505 06 07 08 09 10

Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

855

755

805780

730

655

755730

680

705

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

850690

830

810790

710770

730750

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

800

625650

750

675700

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 8 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

770755

680

740740

710

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

7

750

625

775

725

750

700

725

650

675

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 9 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 11

)e incorporation of fly ash would refine the porestructure of mortar reduce the connectivity of pores andincrease the difficulty in water migration under dryingconditions which showed a positive effect on dryingshrinkage that is drying shrinkage would be greatly re-duced [21] )erefore it was found from Figures 8 and 9that the dry shrinkage of UHPC became much larger whensilica fume content was around 50 )is was because theeffect of silica fume on the drying shrinkage of UHPC wasmainly due to the volcanic ash effect Silica fume had highactivity and could react with the hydration productCa(OH)2 to form C-S-H gel which on the one hand notonly reduced the amount of flake crystal Ca(OH)2 andincreased the amount of C-S-H in cement but also on theother hand refines the pore size and improves the porestructure However C-S-H gel itself had a porous structureand would contract under dry conditions while Ca(OH)2was a crystal structure which generally would not contractAt the same time part of Ca(OH)2 was distributed in thevoid of C-S-H gel which had an inhibitory effect on itscontraction [22] )e pozzolanite reaction consumesCa(OH)2 in the cement which eliminates the restrictioneffect of Ca(OH)2 on C-S-H gel shrinkage )erefore itcould be deduced that the higher the reaction degree ofvolcanic ash the greater the drying shrinkage value of thecorresponding specimen)eoretically there was a positivecorrelation between the degree of ash reaction and thecontent of silica fume)erefore the incorporation of silicafume could enhance the dry shrinkage of UHPC

35 Autogenous Shrinkage Under the cementitious systemof cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash UHPC was prepared byusing M-PCE and Sika respectively and the autogenousshrinkage changes in prepared UHPC are shown in Fig-ures 10 and 11

According to the 3-day autogenous shrinkage test resultsof UHPC in Figures 10 and 11 the relation between 3-dayautogenous shrinkage Y of UHPCwith eitherM-PCE or Sikaand the composition of cementation material was estab-lished as shown in the following equation

Y(MminusPCE) 9X1 + 3X2 + 48X3 minus 61X4 + 038X1X2

minus 032X1X3 + 121X1X4 minus 4X2X3

minus 269X2X4 minus 007X3X4 + 006793X1X2X3

+ 005428X1X2X4 + 00098X1X3X4

+ 06089X2X3X4 minus 0010649X1X2X3X4

(10)

Y(Sika) 9X1 + 11X2 + 27X3 minus 78X4 + 081X1X2

minus 027X1X3 + 1579X1X4 minus 019X2X3minus 01X2X4 minus 201X3X4 + 00101X1X2X3+ 00108X1X2X4 + 00435X1X3X4+ 06575X2X3X4 minus 001182X1X2X3X4

(11)

From formulas (10)-(11) it could be seen that silicatecement had the same effect on the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC when either M-PCE or Sika was used that is thecoefficients of X1 were the same In addition the coeffi-cients of X4 X1X3 X2X3 X2X4 X3X4 and X1X2X3X4were all negative indicating the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC could be effectively reduced by either adding flyash silicate cement and slag silica fume and slag silicafume and fly ash or adding the four kinds of cementingmaterials )e other admixture measures all could in-crease the self-contraction of UHPC As could be seenfrom Figures 10 and 11 the influence of M-PCE on UHPCself-shrinking was almost the same as that of Sika onUHPC From the molecular perspective their molecular

790775

760745

700

730

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

550

500

750

550

650

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 9 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (Sika)

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

19001100

1500

1700

1400

16001500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1600 1100

1200

1600

1300

1300

1400

1400

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

1900

1000

1700

1200

1600

1400

1500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1800

1200

1700

13001400

1600

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 10 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

1900 1200

1400

1300

1800

1400

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1400

1500

1400

1800

1500

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 11 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

structure contains a large number of polyethylene glycolreduction groups which could effectively reduce thesurface tension of pore solution )erefore the autoge-nous shrinkage value of UHPC prepared by pure silicatecement was small

In addition we found that adding silica fume alonewould increase the autogenous shrinkage of UHPC whichwas consistent with the results in [23] )e main reasonscould be listed as follows (1) silica fume fineness waslarge and its unique filling effect could refine the porestructure of cement-based materials (2) Ca(OH)2 gen-erated in the early stage was not well grown and very smallin particle size After the addition of silica fume it waseasy to react quickly with silica fume to produce calciumsilicate hydrate with low CS ratio making the interfacebetween the unhydrated cement particles and calciumsilicate hydrate become more compact and uniform [24](3) when the content of silica fume was high the excesssilica fume could continue to react with the generated C-S-H to produce the outer layer of calcium silicate hydratewith a lower CS ratio making the structure of the ce-ment-based materials doped with silica fume more dense[25] )erefore silica fume could reduce the porosity andaverage pore size of UHPC Since the value of autogenousshrinkage was related to the capillary pressure of cement-based materials the capillary pressure was mainly relatedto its diameter )e greater the silica fume content thesmaller the capillary diameter the greater the capillarypressure the greater the value of autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC

Because the chemical shrinkage induced by pozzolanicreaction of slag was greater than that induced by cementhydration it was found that the effect of single dosage of slagon UHPCrsquos autogenous shrinkage was great Meanwhile theactivity and hydration degree of slag was greater than that ofsilicate cement which greatly promoted the growth ofcapillary negative pressure and increased the action area[26 27]

4 Conclusions

In this study pectiniform polycarboxylate was synthesized atroom temperature and its applications in UHPC includingflowability strength drying shrinkage and autogenousshrinkage were investigated )e following conclusionscould be obtained based on the above experimental resultsand discussion

(1) )e polysiloxane in molecular structure had bettercompatibility with silicate cement When eitherM-PCE or Sika was used the positive influence ofsilicate cement on the flowability of UHPC was thesame It is worth noting that the use of three or morecementitious materials had a negative synergisticeffect on the flowability of UHPC although this effectwas weak

(2) )ere was little difference in compressive strength ofHUPC prepared by M-PCE and Sika )e incor-poration of cement with silica fume and that ofcement with fly ash both had a positive effect on the28-day strength of UHPC

(3) )e incorporation of fly ash could effectively reducethe drying shrinkage and autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC In terms of dry shrinkage the dosage of silicafume and fly ash could effectively reduce the 28-daydry shrinkage of UHPC Other incorporationmethods would all increase the 28-day dry shrinkageof UHPC to varying degrees From the perspective ofautogenous shrinkage the incorporation of silicafume and slag that of silica fume and fly ash or thatof all four cementing materials could all effectivelyreduce the 3-day autogenous shrinkage of UHPC

Data Availability

All the data used during the study are available from thecorresponding author by request

1300

1500

14001800

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1500

1300

1600

14001500

1800

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 11 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (Sika)

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

Conflicts of Interest

)e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest

Authorsrsquo Contributions

Shuncheng Xiang conceptualized the study preparedmethodology investigated the study performed datacuration did formal analysis wrote the original draft andrevised the manuscript Yingli Gao administrated theproject obtained funding acquisition and supervised thestudy

Acknowledgments

)e authors gratefully acknowledge the financial supportfrom the National Natural Science Foundation of China(General Program 51978080) Civil Aviation Administrationof China (U1833127) Hunan Province Natural ScienceFoundation (2018JJ4016) Key Scientific Research Projects ofHunan Education Department (18A129) National Key RampDProgram of China (Grant number 2018YFB1600100) andOpen Fund (Grant number kfj190503) of Key Laboratory ofSpecial Environment Road Engineering of Hunan Province(Changsha University of Science amp Technology)

References

[1] P J Andersen D M Roy J M Gaidis and WR Grace andCompany ldquo)e effects of adsorption of superplasticizers onthe surface of cementrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 17no 5 pp 805ndash813 1987

[2] C-Z Li N-Q Feng Y-D Li and R-J Chen ldquoEffects ofpolyethlene oxide chains on the performance of poly-carboxylate-type water-reducersrdquo Cement and Concrete Re-search vol 35 no 5 pp 867ndash873 2005

[3] B He Y Gao L Qu K Duan W Zhou and G PeildquoCharacteristics analysis of self-luminescent cement-basedcomposite materials with self-cleaning effectrdquo Journal ofCleaner Production vol 225 pp 1169ndash1183 2019

[4] Y Gao L Qu B He K Dai Z Fang and R Zhu ldquoStudy oneffectiveness of anti-icing and deicing performance of super-hydrophobic asphalt concreterdquo Construction and BuildingMaterials vol 191 pp 270ndash280 2018

[5] C J Shi ldquoRecent development of PC superplasticizersrdquo inProceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on MixDesign Performance and Use of SCC pp 16ndash25 BeijingChina June 2009

[6] K R Duan Y L Gao H Yao et al ldquoComparison of per-formances of early aged pre-vibrated cement-stabilizedmacadam formed by different compactionsrdquo Constructionand Building Materials vol 239 2020

[7] P C Aitcin ldquo)e durability characteristics of high perfor-mance con-crete reviewrdquo Cement and Concrete Compositesvol 25 pp 409ndash420 2003

[8] M Jones R Dhir and J Gill ldquoConcrete surface treatmenteffect of exposure temperature on chloride diffusion resis-tancerdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 1pp 197ndash208 1995

[9] M Levi C Ferro D Regazzoli G Dotelli and A Lopresti ldquoComparative evaluation method of polymer sur-face treatments applied on high performance concreterdquo

Journal of Materials Science vol 37 no 22 pp 4881ndash48882002

[10] J L )ompson M R Silsbee P M Gill and B E ScheetzldquoCharacterization of silicate sealers on concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 27 no 10 pp 1561ndash1567 1997

[11] D A Kagi and K B Ren ldquoReduction of water absorption insilicate treated concrete by post-treatment with cationicsurfactantsrdquo Building and Environment vol 30 no 2pp 237ndash243 1995

[12] R P Khatri V Sirivivatnanon and W Gross ldquoEffect ofdifferent supplementary cementitious materials on mechan-ical properties of high performance concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 25 no 1 pp 209ndash220 1995

[13] B K Ganesh and P P V Surya ldquoEfficiency of silica fume inconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 6pp 1273ndash1283 1995

[14] R Duval and E H Kadri ldquoInfluence of silica fume on theworkability and the compressive strength of high-perfor-mance concretesrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 28no 4 pp 533ndash547 1998

[15] K H Khayat and P C Aitcin ldquoSilica fume a unique-supplementary cementitious materialrdquo in Mineral Admix-turesin Cement and Concrete S N Ghosh Ed pp 227ndash265ABI Books Private Limited New Delhi India 1993

[16] M Mazloom A A Ramezanianpour and J J Brooks ldquoEffectof silica fume on mechanical properties of high-strengthconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Composites vol 26 no 4pp 347ndash357 2004

[17] T K Erdem and O Kırca ldquoUse of binary and ternary blendsin high strength concreterdquo Construction and Building Ma-terials vol 22 no 7 pp 1477ndash1483 2008

[18] A Elahi P A M Basheer S V Nanukuttan andQ U Z Khan ldquoMechanical and durability properties of highperformance concretes containing supplementary cementi-tious materialsrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 24no 3 pp 292ndash299 2010

[19] Y Dang N Xie A Kessel E McVey A Pace and X ShildquoAccelerated laboratory evaluation of surface treatments forprotecting concrete bridge decks from salt scalingrdquo Con-struction and Building Materials vol 55 pp 128ndash135 2014

[20] J Zhang L Ding F Li and J Peng ldquoRecycled aggregates fromconstruction and demolition wastes as alternative fillingmaterials for highway subgrades in Chinardquo Journal of CleanerProduction vol 255 p 120223 2020

[21] J Zhang F Gu and Y Q Zhang ldquoUse of building-relatedconstruction and demolition wastes in highway embankmentlaboratory and field evaluationsrdquo Journal of Cleaner Pro-duction vol 230 pp 1051ndash1060 2019

[22] H Zhang ldquo)e effect of curing conditions on compressivestrength of ultra high strength concrete with high volumemineral admixturesrdquo Building and Environment vol 42pp 2083ndash2089 2007

[23] S-Y Hong and F P Glasser ldquoPhase relations in the CaO-SiO2-H2O system to 200degC at saturated steam pressurerdquoCement and Concrete Research vol 34 no 9 pp 1529ndash15342004

[24] M H Zhang C T Tam and M P Leow ldquoEffect of water-to-cementitious materials ratio and silica fume on the autoge-nous shrinkage of concreterdquo Cement and Concrete Researchvol 33 no 10 pp 1687ndash1694 2003

[25] H Li Z Yi and Y Xie ldquoProgress of silane impregnatingsurface treatment technology of concrete structurerdquoMaterialsReview vol 26 no 3 pp 120ndash125 2012

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

[26] Z D Rong W Sun H J Xiao and W Wang ldquoEffect of silicafume and fly ash on hydration and microstructure evolutionof cement based composites at low water-binder ratiosrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 51 pp 446ndash4502014

[27] M H F Medeiros and P Helene ldquoSurface treatment ofreinforced concrete in marine environment influence onchloride diffusion coefficient and capillary water absorptionrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 23 no 3pp 1476ndash1484 2009

16 Advances in Civil Engineering

)e incorporation of fly ash would refine the porestructure of mortar reduce the connectivity of pores andincrease the difficulty in water migration under dryingconditions which showed a positive effect on dryingshrinkage that is drying shrinkage would be greatly re-duced [21] )erefore it was found from Figures 8 and 9that the dry shrinkage of UHPC became much larger whensilica fume content was around 50 )is was because theeffect of silica fume on the drying shrinkage of UHPC wasmainly due to the volcanic ash effect Silica fume had highactivity and could react with the hydration productCa(OH)2 to form C-S-H gel which on the one hand notonly reduced the amount of flake crystal Ca(OH)2 andincreased the amount of C-S-H in cement but also on theother hand refines the pore size and improves the porestructure However C-S-H gel itself had a porous structureand would contract under dry conditions while Ca(OH)2was a crystal structure which generally would not contractAt the same time part of Ca(OH)2 was distributed in thevoid of C-S-H gel which had an inhibitory effect on itscontraction [22] )e pozzolanite reaction consumesCa(OH)2 in the cement which eliminates the restrictioneffect of Ca(OH)2 on C-S-H gel shrinkage )erefore itcould be deduced that the higher the reaction degree ofvolcanic ash the greater the drying shrinkage value of thecorresponding specimen)eoretically there was a positivecorrelation between the degree of ash reaction and thecontent of silica fume)erefore the incorporation of silicafume could enhance the dry shrinkage of UHPC

35 Autogenous Shrinkage Under the cementitious systemof cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash UHPC was prepared byusing M-PCE and Sika respectively and the autogenousshrinkage changes in prepared UHPC are shown in Fig-ures 10 and 11

According to the 3-day autogenous shrinkage test resultsof UHPC in Figures 10 and 11 the relation between 3-dayautogenous shrinkage Y of UHPCwith eitherM-PCE or Sikaand the composition of cementation material was estab-lished as shown in the following equation

Y(MminusPCE) 9X1 + 3X2 + 48X3 minus 61X4 + 038X1X2

minus 032X1X3 + 121X1X4 minus 4X2X3

minus 269X2X4 minus 007X3X4 + 006793X1X2X3

+ 005428X1X2X4 + 00098X1X3X4

+ 06089X2X3X4 minus 0010649X1X2X3X4

(10)

Y(Sika) 9X1 + 11X2 + 27X3 minus 78X4 + 081X1X2

minus 027X1X3 + 1579X1X4 minus 019X2X3minus 01X2X4 minus 201X3X4 + 00101X1X2X3+ 00108X1X2X4 + 00435X1X3X4+ 06575X2X3X4 minus 001182X1X2X3X4

(11)

From formulas (10)-(11) it could be seen that silicatecement had the same effect on the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC when either M-PCE or Sika was used that is thecoefficients of X1 were the same In addition the coeffi-cients of X4 X1X3 X2X3 X2X4 X3X4 and X1X2X3X4were all negative indicating the autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC could be effectively reduced by either adding flyash silicate cement and slag silica fume and slag silicafume and fly ash or adding the four kinds of cementingmaterials )e other admixture measures all could in-crease the self-contraction of UHPC As could be seenfrom Figures 10 and 11 the influence of M-PCE on UHPCself-shrinking was almost the same as that of Sika onUHPC From the molecular perspective their molecular

790775

760745

700

730

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

550

500

750

550

650

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 9 Dry shrinkage of UHPC (28 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (Sika)

12 Advances in Civil Engineering

19001100

1500

1700

1400

16001500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1600 1100

1200

1600

1300

1300

1400

1400

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

1900

1000

1700

1200

1600

1400

1500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1800

1200

1700

13001400

1600

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 10 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

1900 1200

1400

1300

1800

1400

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1400

1500

1400

1800

1500

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 11 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

structure contains a large number of polyethylene glycolreduction groups which could effectively reduce thesurface tension of pore solution )erefore the autoge-nous shrinkage value of UHPC prepared by pure silicatecement was small

In addition we found that adding silica fume alonewould increase the autogenous shrinkage of UHPC whichwas consistent with the results in [23] )e main reasonscould be listed as follows (1) silica fume fineness waslarge and its unique filling effect could refine the porestructure of cement-based materials (2) Ca(OH)2 gen-erated in the early stage was not well grown and very smallin particle size After the addition of silica fume it waseasy to react quickly with silica fume to produce calciumsilicate hydrate with low CS ratio making the interfacebetween the unhydrated cement particles and calciumsilicate hydrate become more compact and uniform [24](3) when the content of silica fume was high the excesssilica fume could continue to react with the generated C-S-H to produce the outer layer of calcium silicate hydratewith a lower CS ratio making the structure of the ce-ment-based materials doped with silica fume more dense[25] )erefore silica fume could reduce the porosity andaverage pore size of UHPC Since the value of autogenousshrinkage was related to the capillary pressure of cement-based materials the capillary pressure was mainly relatedto its diameter )e greater the silica fume content thesmaller the capillary diameter the greater the capillarypressure the greater the value of autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC

Because the chemical shrinkage induced by pozzolanicreaction of slag was greater than that induced by cementhydration it was found that the effect of single dosage of slagon UHPCrsquos autogenous shrinkage was great Meanwhile theactivity and hydration degree of slag was greater than that ofsilicate cement which greatly promoted the growth ofcapillary negative pressure and increased the action area[26 27]

4 Conclusions

In this study pectiniform polycarboxylate was synthesized atroom temperature and its applications in UHPC includingflowability strength drying shrinkage and autogenousshrinkage were investigated )e following conclusionscould be obtained based on the above experimental resultsand discussion

(1) )e polysiloxane in molecular structure had bettercompatibility with silicate cement When eitherM-PCE or Sika was used the positive influence ofsilicate cement on the flowability of UHPC was thesame It is worth noting that the use of three or morecementitious materials had a negative synergisticeffect on the flowability of UHPC although this effectwas weak

(2) )ere was little difference in compressive strength ofHUPC prepared by M-PCE and Sika )e incor-poration of cement with silica fume and that ofcement with fly ash both had a positive effect on the28-day strength of UHPC

(3) )e incorporation of fly ash could effectively reducethe drying shrinkage and autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC In terms of dry shrinkage the dosage of silicafume and fly ash could effectively reduce the 28-daydry shrinkage of UHPC Other incorporationmethods would all increase the 28-day dry shrinkageof UHPC to varying degrees From the perspective ofautogenous shrinkage the incorporation of silicafume and slag that of silica fume and fly ash or thatof all four cementing materials could all effectivelyreduce the 3-day autogenous shrinkage of UHPC

Data Availability

All the data used during the study are available from thecorresponding author by request

1300

1500

14001800

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1500

1300

1600

14001500

1800

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 11 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (Sika)

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

Conflicts of Interest

)e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest

Authorsrsquo Contributions

Shuncheng Xiang conceptualized the study preparedmethodology investigated the study performed datacuration did formal analysis wrote the original draft andrevised the manuscript Yingli Gao administrated theproject obtained funding acquisition and supervised thestudy

Acknowledgments

)e authors gratefully acknowledge the financial supportfrom the National Natural Science Foundation of China(General Program 51978080) Civil Aviation Administrationof China (U1833127) Hunan Province Natural ScienceFoundation (2018JJ4016) Key Scientific Research Projects ofHunan Education Department (18A129) National Key RampDProgram of China (Grant number 2018YFB1600100) andOpen Fund (Grant number kfj190503) of Key Laboratory ofSpecial Environment Road Engineering of Hunan Province(Changsha University of Science amp Technology)

References

[1] P J Andersen D M Roy J M Gaidis and WR Grace andCompany ldquo)e effects of adsorption of superplasticizers onthe surface of cementrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 17no 5 pp 805ndash813 1987

[2] C-Z Li N-Q Feng Y-D Li and R-J Chen ldquoEffects ofpolyethlene oxide chains on the performance of poly-carboxylate-type water-reducersrdquo Cement and Concrete Re-search vol 35 no 5 pp 867ndash873 2005

[3] B He Y Gao L Qu K Duan W Zhou and G PeildquoCharacteristics analysis of self-luminescent cement-basedcomposite materials with self-cleaning effectrdquo Journal ofCleaner Production vol 225 pp 1169ndash1183 2019

[4] Y Gao L Qu B He K Dai Z Fang and R Zhu ldquoStudy oneffectiveness of anti-icing and deicing performance of super-hydrophobic asphalt concreterdquo Construction and BuildingMaterials vol 191 pp 270ndash280 2018

[5] C J Shi ldquoRecent development of PC superplasticizersrdquo inProceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on MixDesign Performance and Use of SCC pp 16ndash25 BeijingChina June 2009

[6] K R Duan Y L Gao H Yao et al ldquoComparison of per-formances of early aged pre-vibrated cement-stabilizedmacadam formed by different compactionsrdquo Constructionand Building Materials vol 239 2020

[7] P C Aitcin ldquo)e durability characteristics of high perfor-mance con-crete reviewrdquo Cement and Concrete Compositesvol 25 pp 409ndash420 2003

[8] M Jones R Dhir and J Gill ldquoConcrete surface treatmenteffect of exposure temperature on chloride diffusion resis-tancerdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 1pp 197ndash208 1995

[9] M Levi C Ferro D Regazzoli G Dotelli and A Lopresti ldquoComparative evaluation method of polymer sur-face treatments applied on high performance concreterdquo

Journal of Materials Science vol 37 no 22 pp 4881ndash48882002

[10] J L )ompson M R Silsbee P M Gill and B E ScheetzldquoCharacterization of silicate sealers on concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 27 no 10 pp 1561ndash1567 1997

[11] D A Kagi and K B Ren ldquoReduction of water absorption insilicate treated concrete by post-treatment with cationicsurfactantsrdquo Building and Environment vol 30 no 2pp 237ndash243 1995

[12] R P Khatri V Sirivivatnanon and W Gross ldquoEffect ofdifferent supplementary cementitious materials on mechan-ical properties of high performance concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 25 no 1 pp 209ndash220 1995

[13] B K Ganesh and P P V Surya ldquoEfficiency of silica fume inconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 6pp 1273ndash1283 1995

[14] R Duval and E H Kadri ldquoInfluence of silica fume on theworkability and the compressive strength of high-perfor-mance concretesrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 28no 4 pp 533ndash547 1998

[15] K H Khayat and P C Aitcin ldquoSilica fume a unique-supplementary cementitious materialrdquo in Mineral Admix-turesin Cement and Concrete S N Ghosh Ed pp 227ndash265ABI Books Private Limited New Delhi India 1993

[16] M Mazloom A A Ramezanianpour and J J Brooks ldquoEffectof silica fume on mechanical properties of high-strengthconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Composites vol 26 no 4pp 347ndash357 2004

[17] T K Erdem and O Kırca ldquoUse of binary and ternary blendsin high strength concreterdquo Construction and Building Ma-terials vol 22 no 7 pp 1477ndash1483 2008

[18] A Elahi P A M Basheer S V Nanukuttan andQ U Z Khan ldquoMechanical and durability properties of highperformance concretes containing supplementary cementi-tious materialsrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 24no 3 pp 292ndash299 2010

[19] Y Dang N Xie A Kessel E McVey A Pace and X ShildquoAccelerated laboratory evaluation of surface treatments forprotecting concrete bridge decks from salt scalingrdquo Con-struction and Building Materials vol 55 pp 128ndash135 2014

[20] J Zhang L Ding F Li and J Peng ldquoRecycled aggregates fromconstruction and demolition wastes as alternative fillingmaterials for highway subgrades in Chinardquo Journal of CleanerProduction vol 255 p 120223 2020

[21] J Zhang F Gu and Y Q Zhang ldquoUse of building-relatedconstruction and demolition wastes in highway embankmentlaboratory and field evaluationsrdquo Journal of Cleaner Pro-duction vol 230 pp 1051ndash1060 2019

[22] H Zhang ldquo)e effect of curing conditions on compressivestrength of ultra high strength concrete with high volumemineral admixturesrdquo Building and Environment vol 42pp 2083ndash2089 2007

[23] S-Y Hong and F P Glasser ldquoPhase relations in the CaO-SiO2-H2O system to 200degC at saturated steam pressurerdquoCement and Concrete Research vol 34 no 9 pp 1529ndash15342004

[24] M H Zhang C T Tam and M P Leow ldquoEffect of water-to-cementitious materials ratio and silica fume on the autoge-nous shrinkage of concreterdquo Cement and Concrete Researchvol 33 no 10 pp 1687ndash1694 2003

[25] H Li Z Yi and Y Xie ldquoProgress of silane impregnatingsurface treatment technology of concrete structurerdquoMaterialsReview vol 26 no 3 pp 120ndash125 2012

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

[26] Z D Rong W Sun H J Xiao and W Wang ldquoEffect of silicafume and fly ash on hydration and microstructure evolutionof cement based composites at low water-binder ratiosrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 51 pp 446ndash4502014

[27] M H F Medeiros and P Helene ldquoSurface treatment ofreinforced concrete in marine environment influence onchloride diffusion coefficient and capillary water absorptionrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 23 no 3pp 1476ndash1484 2009

16 Advances in Civil Engineering

19001100

1500

1700

1400

16001500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1600 1100

1200

1600

1300

1300

1400

1400

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

1900

1000

1700

1200

1600

1400

1500

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1800

1200

1700

13001400

1600

1500

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 10 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cementitious system of cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash (M-PCE)

1900 1200

1400

1300

1800

1400

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeSla

g

(a)

1400

1500

1400

1800

1500

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Silica fumeFl

y ash

(b)

Figure 11 Continued

Advances in Civil Engineering 13

structure contains a large number of polyethylene glycolreduction groups which could effectively reduce thesurface tension of pore solution )erefore the autoge-nous shrinkage value of UHPC prepared by pure silicatecement was small

In addition we found that adding silica fume alonewould increase the autogenous shrinkage of UHPC whichwas consistent with the results in [23] )e main reasonscould be listed as follows (1) silica fume fineness waslarge and its unique filling effect could refine the porestructure of cement-based materials (2) Ca(OH)2 gen-erated in the early stage was not well grown and very smallin particle size After the addition of silica fume it waseasy to react quickly with silica fume to produce calciumsilicate hydrate with low CS ratio making the interfacebetween the unhydrated cement particles and calciumsilicate hydrate become more compact and uniform [24](3) when the content of silica fume was high the excesssilica fume could continue to react with the generated C-S-H to produce the outer layer of calcium silicate hydratewith a lower CS ratio making the structure of the ce-ment-based materials doped with silica fume more dense[25] )erefore silica fume could reduce the porosity andaverage pore size of UHPC Since the value of autogenousshrinkage was related to the capillary pressure of cement-based materials the capillary pressure was mainly relatedto its diameter )e greater the silica fume content thesmaller the capillary diameter the greater the capillarypressure the greater the value of autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC

Because the chemical shrinkage induced by pozzolanicreaction of slag was greater than that induced by cementhydration it was found that the effect of single dosage of slagon UHPCrsquos autogenous shrinkage was great Meanwhile theactivity and hydration degree of slag was greater than that ofsilicate cement which greatly promoted the growth ofcapillary negative pressure and increased the action area[26 27]

4 Conclusions

In this study pectiniform polycarboxylate was synthesized atroom temperature and its applications in UHPC includingflowability strength drying shrinkage and autogenousshrinkage were investigated )e following conclusionscould be obtained based on the above experimental resultsand discussion

(1) )e polysiloxane in molecular structure had bettercompatibility with silicate cement When eitherM-PCE or Sika was used the positive influence ofsilicate cement on the flowability of UHPC was thesame It is worth noting that the use of three or morecementitious materials had a negative synergisticeffect on the flowability of UHPC although this effectwas weak

(2) )ere was little difference in compressive strength ofHUPC prepared by M-PCE and Sika )e incor-poration of cement with silica fume and that ofcement with fly ash both had a positive effect on the28-day strength of UHPC

(3) )e incorporation of fly ash could effectively reducethe drying shrinkage and autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC In terms of dry shrinkage the dosage of silicafume and fly ash could effectively reduce the 28-daydry shrinkage of UHPC Other incorporationmethods would all increase the 28-day dry shrinkageof UHPC to varying degrees From the perspective ofautogenous shrinkage the incorporation of silicafume and slag that of silica fume and fly ash or thatof all four cementing materials could all effectivelyreduce the 3-day autogenous shrinkage of UHPC

Data Availability

All the data used during the study are available from thecorresponding author by request

1300

1500

14001800

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1500

1300

1600

14001500

1800

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 11 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (Sika)

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

Conflicts of Interest

)e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest

Authorsrsquo Contributions

Shuncheng Xiang conceptualized the study preparedmethodology investigated the study performed datacuration did formal analysis wrote the original draft andrevised the manuscript Yingli Gao administrated theproject obtained funding acquisition and supervised thestudy

Acknowledgments

)e authors gratefully acknowledge the financial supportfrom the National Natural Science Foundation of China(General Program 51978080) Civil Aviation Administrationof China (U1833127) Hunan Province Natural ScienceFoundation (2018JJ4016) Key Scientific Research Projects ofHunan Education Department (18A129) National Key RampDProgram of China (Grant number 2018YFB1600100) andOpen Fund (Grant number kfj190503) of Key Laboratory ofSpecial Environment Road Engineering of Hunan Province(Changsha University of Science amp Technology)

References

[1] P J Andersen D M Roy J M Gaidis and WR Grace andCompany ldquo)e effects of adsorption of superplasticizers onthe surface of cementrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 17no 5 pp 805ndash813 1987

[2] C-Z Li N-Q Feng Y-D Li and R-J Chen ldquoEffects ofpolyethlene oxide chains on the performance of poly-carboxylate-type water-reducersrdquo Cement and Concrete Re-search vol 35 no 5 pp 867ndash873 2005

[3] B He Y Gao L Qu K Duan W Zhou and G PeildquoCharacteristics analysis of self-luminescent cement-basedcomposite materials with self-cleaning effectrdquo Journal ofCleaner Production vol 225 pp 1169ndash1183 2019

[4] Y Gao L Qu B He K Dai Z Fang and R Zhu ldquoStudy oneffectiveness of anti-icing and deicing performance of super-hydrophobic asphalt concreterdquo Construction and BuildingMaterials vol 191 pp 270ndash280 2018

[5] C J Shi ldquoRecent development of PC superplasticizersrdquo inProceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on MixDesign Performance and Use of SCC pp 16ndash25 BeijingChina June 2009

[6] K R Duan Y L Gao H Yao et al ldquoComparison of per-formances of early aged pre-vibrated cement-stabilizedmacadam formed by different compactionsrdquo Constructionand Building Materials vol 239 2020

[7] P C Aitcin ldquo)e durability characteristics of high perfor-mance con-crete reviewrdquo Cement and Concrete Compositesvol 25 pp 409ndash420 2003

[8] M Jones R Dhir and J Gill ldquoConcrete surface treatmenteffect of exposure temperature on chloride diffusion resis-tancerdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 1pp 197ndash208 1995

[9] M Levi C Ferro D Regazzoli G Dotelli and A Lopresti ldquoComparative evaluation method of polymer sur-face treatments applied on high performance concreterdquo

Journal of Materials Science vol 37 no 22 pp 4881ndash48882002

[10] J L )ompson M R Silsbee P M Gill and B E ScheetzldquoCharacterization of silicate sealers on concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 27 no 10 pp 1561ndash1567 1997

[11] D A Kagi and K B Ren ldquoReduction of water absorption insilicate treated concrete by post-treatment with cationicsurfactantsrdquo Building and Environment vol 30 no 2pp 237ndash243 1995

[12] R P Khatri V Sirivivatnanon and W Gross ldquoEffect ofdifferent supplementary cementitious materials on mechan-ical properties of high performance concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 25 no 1 pp 209ndash220 1995

[13] B K Ganesh and P P V Surya ldquoEfficiency of silica fume inconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 6pp 1273ndash1283 1995

[14] R Duval and E H Kadri ldquoInfluence of silica fume on theworkability and the compressive strength of high-perfor-mance concretesrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 28no 4 pp 533ndash547 1998

[15] K H Khayat and P C Aitcin ldquoSilica fume a unique-supplementary cementitious materialrdquo in Mineral Admix-turesin Cement and Concrete S N Ghosh Ed pp 227ndash265ABI Books Private Limited New Delhi India 1993

[16] M Mazloom A A Ramezanianpour and J J Brooks ldquoEffectof silica fume on mechanical properties of high-strengthconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Composites vol 26 no 4pp 347ndash357 2004

[17] T K Erdem and O Kırca ldquoUse of binary and ternary blendsin high strength concreterdquo Construction and Building Ma-terials vol 22 no 7 pp 1477ndash1483 2008

[18] A Elahi P A M Basheer S V Nanukuttan andQ U Z Khan ldquoMechanical and durability properties of highperformance concretes containing supplementary cementi-tious materialsrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 24no 3 pp 292ndash299 2010

[19] Y Dang N Xie A Kessel E McVey A Pace and X ShildquoAccelerated laboratory evaluation of surface treatments forprotecting concrete bridge decks from salt scalingrdquo Con-struction and Building Materials vol 55 pp 128ndash135 2014

[20] J Zhang L Ding F Li and J Peng ldquoRecycled aggregates fromconstruction and demolition wastes as alternative fillingmaterials for highway subgrades in Chinardquo Journal of CleanerProduction vol 255 p 120223 2020

[21] J Zhang F Gu and Y Q Zhang ldquoUse of building-relatedconstruction and demolition wastes in highway embankmentlaboratory and field evaluationsrdquo Journal of Cleaner Pro-duction vol 230 pp 1051ndash1060 2019

[22] H Zhang ldquo)e effect of curing conditions on compressivestrength of ultra high strength concrete with high volumemineral admixturesrdquo Building and Environment vol 42pp 2083ndash2089 2007

[23] S-Y Hong and F P Glasser ldquoPhase relations in the CaO-SiO2-H2O system to 200degC at saturated steam pressurerdquoCement and Concrete Research vol 34 no 9 pp 1529ndash15342004

[24] M H Zhang C T Tam and M P Leow ldquoEffect of water-to-cementitious materials ratio and silica fume on the autoge-nous shrinkage of concreterdquo Cement and Concrete Researchvol 33 no 10 pp 1687ndash1694 2003

[25] H Li Z Yi and Y Xie ldquoProgress of silane impregnatingsurface treatment technology of concrete structurerdquoMaterialsReview vol 26 no 3 pp 120ndash125 2012

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

[26] Z D Rong W Sun H J Xiao and W Wang ldquoEffect of silicafume and fly ash on hydration and microstructure evolutionof cement based composites at low water-binder ratiosrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 51 pp 446ndash4502014

[27] M H F Medeiros and P Helene ldquoSurface treatment ofreinforced concrete in marine environment influence onchloride diffusion coefficient and capillary water absorptionrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 23 no 3pp 1476ndash1484 2009

16 Advances in Civil Engineering

structure contains a large number of polyethylene glycolreduction groups which could effectively reduce thesurface tension of pore solution )erefore the autoge-nous shrinkage value of UHPC prepared by pure silicatecement was small

In addition we found that adding silica fume alonewould increase the autogenous shrinkage of UHPC whichwas consistent with the results in [23] )e main reasonscould be listed as follows (1) silica fume fineness waslarge and its unique filling effect could refine the porestructure of cement-based materials (2) Ca(OH)2 gen-erated in the early stage was not well grown and very smallin particle size After the addition of silica fume it waseasy to react quickly with silica fume to produce calciumsilicate hydrate with low CS ratio making the interfacebetween the unhydrated cement particles and calciumsilicate hydrate become more compact and uniform [24](3) when the content of silica fume was high the excesssilica fume could continue to react with the generated C-S-H to produce the outer layer of calcium silicate hydratewith a lower CS ratio making the structure of the ce-ment-based materials doped with silica fume more dense[25] )erefore silica fume could reduce the porosity andaverage pore size of UHPC Since the value of autogenousshrinkage was related to the capillary pressure of cement-based materials the capillary pressure was mainly relatedto its diameter )e greater the silica fume content thesmaller the capillary diameter the greater the capillarypressure the greater the value of autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC

Because the chemical shrinkage induced by pozzolanicreaction of slag was greater than that induced by cementhydration it was found that the effect of single dosage of slagon UHPCrsquos autogenous shrinkage was great Meanwhile theactivity and hydration degree of slag was greater than that ofsilicate cement which greatly promoted the growth ofcapillary negative pressure and increased the action area[26 27]

4 Conclusions

In this study pectiniform polycarboxylate was synthesized atroom temperature and its applications in UHPC includingflowability strength drying shrinkage and autogenousshrinkage were investigated )e following conclusionscould be obtained based on the above experimental resultsand discussion

(1) )e polysiloxane in molecular structure had bettercompatibility with silicate cement When eitherM-PCE or Sika was used the positive influence ofsilicate cement on the flowability of UHPC was thesame It is worth noting that the use of three or morecementitious materials had a negative synergisticeffect on the flowability of UHPC although this effectwas weak

(2) )ere was little difference in compressive strength ofHUPC prepared by M-PCE and Sika )e incor-poration of cement with silica fume and that ofcement with fly ash both had a positive effect on the28-day strength of UHPC

(3) )e incorporation of fly ash could effectively reducethe drying shrinkage and autogenous shrinkage ofUHPC In terms of dry shrinkage the dosage of silicafume and fly ash could effectively reduce the 28-daydry shrinkage of UHPC Other incorporationmethods would all increase the 28-day dry shrinkageof UHPC to varying degrees From the perspective ofautogenous shrinkage the incorporation of silicafume and slag that of silica fume and fly ash or thatof all four cementing materials could all effectivelyreduce the 3-day autogenous shrinkage of UHPC

Data Availability

All the data used during the study are available from thecorresponding author by request

1300

1500

14001800

1500

1700

1600

05 06 07 08 09 10Cement

00

01

02

03

04

05 00

01

02

03

04

05

Slag

Fly a

sh

(c)

1500

1300

1600

14001500

1800

1700

1600

00 02 04 06 08 10Silica fume (0ndash50)

00

02

04

06

08

10 00

02

04

06

08

10

Slag (0ndash50)

Fly a

sh (0

ndash50

)

(d)

Figure 11 Autogenous shrinkage of UHPC (3 d) with cement-silica fume-slag-fly ash binder (Sika)

14 Advances in Civil Engineering

Conflicts of Interest

)e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest

Authorsrsquo Contributions

Shuncheng Xiang conceptualized the study preparedmethodology investigated the study performed datacuration did formal analysis wrote the original draft andrevised the manuscript Yingli Gao administrated theproject obtained funding acquisition and supervised thestudy

Acknowledgments

)e authors gratefully acknowledge the financial supportfrom the National Natural Science Foundation of China(General Program 51978080) Civil Aviation Administrationof China (U1833127) Hunan Province Natural ScienceFoundation (2018JJ4016) Key Scientific Research Projects ofHunan Education Department (18A129) National Key RampDProgram of China (Grant number 2018YFB1600100) andOpen Fund (Grant number kfj190503) of Key Laboratory ofSpecial Environment Road Engineering of Hunan Province(Changsha University of Science amp Technology)

References

[1] P J Andersen D M Roy J M Gaidis and WR Grace andCompany ldquo)e effects of adsorption of superplasticizers onthe surface of cementrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 17no 5 pp 805ndash813 1987

[2] C-Z Li N-Q Feng Y-D Li and R-J Chen ldquoEffects ofpolyethlene oxide chains on the performance of poly-carboxylate-type water-reducersrdquo Cement and Concrete Re-search vol 35 no 5 pp 867ndash873 2005

[3] B He Y Gao L Qu K Duan W Zhou and G PeildquoCharacteristics analysis of self-luminescent cement-basedcomposite materials with self-cleaning effectrdquo Journal ofCleaner Production vol 225 pp 1169ndash1183 2019

[4] Y Gao L Qu B He K Dai Z Fang and R Zhu ldquoStudy oneffectiveness of anti-icing and deicing performance of super-hydrophobic asphalt concreterdquo Construction and BuildingMaterials vol 191 pp 270ndash280 2018

[5] C J Shi ldquoRecent development of PC superplasticizersrdquo inProceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on MixDesign Performance and Use of SCC pp 16ndash25 BeijingChina June 2009

[6] K R Duan Y L Gao H Yao et al ldquoComparison of per-formances of early aged pre-vibrated cement-stabilizedmacadam formed by different compactionsrdquo Constructionand Building Materials vol 239 2020

[7] P C Aitcin ldquo)e durability characteristics of high perfor-mance con-crete reviewrdquo Cement and Concrete Compositesvol 25 pp 409ndash420 2003

[8] M Jones R Dhir and J Gill ldquoConcrete surface treatmenteffect of exposure temperature on chloride diffusion resis-tancerdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 1pp 197ndash208 1995

[9] M Levi C Ferro D Regazzoli G Dotelli and A Lopresti ldquoComparative evaluation method of polymer sur-face treatments applied on high performance concreterdquo

Journal of Materials Science vol 37 no 22 pp 4881ndash48882002

[10] J L )ompson M R Silsbee P M Gill and B E ScheetzldquoCharacterization of silicate sealers on concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 27 no 10 pp 1561ndash1567 1997

[11] D A Kagi and K B Ren ldquoReduction of water absorption insilicate treated concrete by post-treatment with cationicsurfactantsrdquo Building and Environment vol 30 no 2pp 237ndash243 1995

[12] R P Khatri V Sirivivatnanon and W Gross ldquoEffect ofdifferent supplementary cementitious materials on mechan-ical properties of high performance concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 25 no 1 pp 209ndash220 1995

[13] B K Ganesh and P P V Surya ldquoEfficiency of silica fume inconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 6pp 1273ndash1283 1995

[14] R Duval and E H Kadri ldquoInfluence of silica fume on theworkability and the compressive strength of high-perfor-mance concretesrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 28no 4 pp 533ndash547 1998

[15] K H Khayat and P C Aitcin ldquoSilica fume a unique-supplementary cementitious materialrdquo in Mineral Admix-turesin Cement and Concrete S N Ghosh Ed pp 227ndash265ABI Books Private Limited New Delhi India 1993

[16] M Mazloom A A Ramezanianpour and J J Brooks ldquoEffectof silica fume on mechanical properties of high-strengthconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Composites vol 26 no 4pp 347ndash357 2004

[17] T K Erdem and O Kırca ldquoUse of binary and ternary blendsin high strength concreterdquo Construction and Building Ma-terials vol 22 no 7 pp 1477ndash1483 2008

[18] A Elahi P A M Basheer S V Nanukuttan andQ U Z Khan ldquoMechanical and durability properties of highperformance concretes containing supplementary cementi-tious materialsrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 24no 3 pp 292ndash299 2010

[19] Y Dang N Xie A Kessel E McVey A Pace and X ShildquoAccelerated laboratory evaluation of surface treatments forprotecting concrete bridge decks from salt scalingrdquo Con-struction and Building Materials vol 55 pp 128ndash135 2014

[20] J Zhang L Ding F Li and J Peng ldquoRecycled aggregates fromconstruction and demolition wastes as alternative fillingmaterials for highway subgrades in Chinardquo Journal of CleanerProduction vol 255 p 120223 2020

[21] J Zhang F Gu and Y Q Zhang ldquoUse of building-relatedconstruction and demolition wastes in highway embankmentlaboratory and field evaluationsrdquo Journal of Cleaner Pro-duction vol 230 pp 1051ndash1060 2019

[22] H Zhang ldquo)e effect of curing conditions on compressivestrength of ultra high strength concrete with high volumemineral admixturesrdquo Building and Environment vol 42pp 2083ndash2089 2007

[23] S-Y Hong and F P Glasser ldquoPhase relations in the CaO-SiO2-H2O system to 200degC at saturated steam pressurerdquoCement and Concrete Research vol 34 no 9 pp 1529ndash15342004

[24] M H Zhang C T Tam and M P Leow ldquoEffect of water-to-cementitious materials ratio and silica fume on the autoge-nous shrinkage of concreterdquo Cement and Concrete Researchvol 33 no 10 pp 1687ndash1694 2003

[25] H Li Z Yi and Y Xie ldquoProgress of silane impregnatingsurface treatment technology of concrete structurerdquoMaterialsReview vol 26 no 3 pp 120ndash125 2012

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

[26] Z D Rong W Sun H J Xiao and W Wang ldquoEffect of silicafume and fly ash on hydration and microstructure evolutionof cement based composites at low water-binder ratiosrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 51 pp 446ndash4502014

[27] M H F Medeiros and P Helene ldquoSurface treatment ofreinforced concrete in marine environment influence onchloride diffusion coefficient and capillary water absorptionrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 23 no 3pp 1476ndash1484 2009

16 Advances in Civil Engineering

Conflicts of Interest

)e authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest

Authorsrsquo Contributions

Shuncheng Xiang conceptualized the study preparedmethodology investigated the study performed datacuration did formal analysis wrote the original draft andrevised the manuscript Yingli Gao administrated theproject obtained funding acquisition and supervised thestudy

Acknowledgments

)e authors gratefully acknowledge the financial supportfrom the National Natural Science Foundation of China(General Program 51978080) Civil Aviation Administrationof China (U1833127) Hunan Province Natural ScienceFoundation (2018JJ4016) Key Scientific Research Projects ofHunan Education Department (18A129) National Key RampDProgram of China (Grant number 2018YFB1600100) andOpen Fund (Grant number kfj190503) of Key Laboratory ofSpecial Environment Road Engineering of Hunan Province(Changsha University of Science amp Technology)

References

[1] P J Andersen D M Roy J M Gaidis and WR Grace andCompany ldquo)e effects of adsorption of superplasticizers onthe surface of cementrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 17no 5 pp 805ndash813 1987

[2] C-Z Li N-Q Feng Y-D Li and R-J Chen ldquoEffects ofpolyethlene oxide chains on the performance of poly-carboxylate-type water-reducersrdquo Cement and Concrete Re-search vol 35 no 5 pp 867ndash873 2005

[3] B He Y Gao L Qu K Duan W Zhou and G PeildquoCharacteristics analysis of self-luminescent cement-basedcomposite materials with self-cleaning effectrdquo Journal ofCleaner Production vol 225 pp 1169ndash1183 2019

[4] Y Gao L Qu B He K Dai Z Fang and R Zhu ldquoStudy oneffectiveness of anti-icing and deicing performance of super-hydrophobic asphalt concreterdquo Construction and BuildingMaterials vol 191 pp 270ndash280 2018

[5] C J Shi ldquoRecent development of PC superplasticizersrdquo inProceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on MixDesign Performance and Use of SCC pp 16ndash25 BeijingChina June 2009

[6] K R Duan Y L Gao H Yao et al ldquoComparison of per-formances of early aged pre-vibrated cement-stabilizedmacadam formed by different compactionsrdquo Constructionand Building Materials vol 239 2020

[7] P C Aitcin ldquo)e durability characteristics of high perfor-mance con-crete reviewrdquo Cement and Concrete Compositesvol 25 pp 409ndash420 2003

[8] M Jones R Dhir and J Gill ldquoConcrete surface treatmenteffect of exposure temperature on chloride diffusion resis-tancerdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 1pp 197ndash208 1995

[9] M Levi C Ferro D Regazzoli G Dotelli and A Lopresti ldquoComparative evaluation method of polymer sur-face treatments applied on high performance concreterdquo

Journal of Materials Science vol 37 no 22 pp 4881ndash48882002

[10] J L )ompson M R Silsbee P M Gill and B E ScheetzldquoCharacterization of silicate sealers on concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 27 no 10 pp 1561ndash1567 1997

[11] D A Kagi and K B Ren ldquoReduction of water absorption insilicate treated concrete by post-treatment with cationicsurfactantsrdquo Building and Environment vol 30 no 2pp 237ndash243 1995

[12] R P Khatri V Sirivivatnanon and W Gross ldquoEffect ofdifferent supplementary cementitious materials on mechan-ical properties of high performance concreterdquo Cement andConcrete Research vol 25 no 1 pp 209ndash220 1995

[13] B K Ganesh and P P V Surya ldquoEfficiency of silica fume inconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 25 no 6pp 1273ndash1283 1995

[14] R Duval and E H Kadri ldquoInfluence of silica fume on theworkability and the compressive strength of high-perfor-mance concretesrdquo Cement and Concrete Research vol 28no 4 pp 533ndash547 1998

[15] K H Khayat and P C Aitcin ldquoSilica fume a unique-supplementary cementitious materialrdquo in Mineral Admix-turesin Cement and Concrete S N Ghosh Ed pp 227ndash265ABI Books Private Limited New Delhi India 1993

[16] M Mazloom A A Ramezanianpour and J J Brooks ldquoEffectof silica fume on mechanical properties of high-strengthconcreterdquo Cement and Concrete Composites vol 26 no 4pp 347ndash357 2004

[17] T K Erdem and O Kırca ldquoUse of binary and ternary blendsin high strength concreterdquo Construction and Building Ma-terials vol 22 no 7 pp 1477ndash1483 2008

[18] A Elahi P A M Basheer S V Nanukuttan andQ U Z Khan ldquoMechanical and durability properties of highperformance concretes containing supplementary cementi-tious materialsrdquo Construction and Building Materials vol 24no 3 pp 292ndash299 2010

[19] Y Dang N Xie A Kessel E McVey A Pace and X ShildquoAccelerated laboratory evaluation of surface treatments forprotecting concrete bridge decks from salt scalingrdquo Con-struction and Building Materials vol 55 pp 128ndash135 2014

[20] J Zhang L Ding F Li and J Peng ldquoRecycled aggregates fromconstruction and demolition wastes as alternative fillingmaterials for highway subgrades in Chinardquo Journal of CleanerProduction vol 255 p 120223 2020

[21] J Zhang F Gu and Y Q Zhang ldquoUse of building-relatedconstruction and demolition wastes in highway embankmentlaboratory and field evaluationsrdquo Journal of Cleaner Pro-duction vol 230 pp 1051ndash1060 2019

[22] H Zhang ldquo)e effect of curing conditions on compressivestrength of ultra high strength concrete with high volumemineral admixturesrdquo Building and Environment vol 42pp 2083ndash2089 2007

[23] S-Y Hong and F P Glasser ldquoPhase relations in the CaO-SiO2-H2O system to 200degC at saturated steam pressurerdquoCement and Concrete Research vol 34 no 9 pp 1529ndash15342004

[24] M H Zhang C T Tam and M P Leow ldquoEffect of water-to-cementitious materials ratio and silica fume on the autoge-nous shrinkage of concreterdquo Cement and Concrete Researchvol 33 no 10 pp 1687ndash1694 2003

[25] H Li Z Yi and Y Xie ldquoProgress of silane impregnatingsurface treatment technology of concrete structurerdquoMaterialsReview vol 26 no 3 pp 120ndash125 2012

Advances in Civil Engineering 15

[26] Z D Rong W Sun H J Xiao and W Wang ldquoEffect of silicafume and fly ash on hydration and microstructure evolutionof cement based composites at low water-binder ratiosrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 51 pp 446ndash4502014

[27] M H F Medeiros and P Helene ldquoSurface treatment ofreinforced concrete in marine environment influence onchloride diffusion coefficient and capillary water absorptionrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 23 no 3pp 1476ndash1484 2009

16 Advances in Civil Engineering

[26] Z D Rong W Sun H J Xiao and W Wang ldquoEffect of silicafume and fly ash on hydration and microstructure evolutionof cement based composites at low water-binder ratiosrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 51 pp 446ndash4502014

[27] M H F Medeiros and P Helene ldquoSurface treatment ofreinforced concrete in marine environment influence onchloride diffusion coefficient and capillary water absorptionrdquoConstruction and Building Materials vol 23 no 3pp 1476ndash1484 2009

16 Advances in Civil Engineering