Advances in alternative cementitious binders

CEMCON-04203; No of Pages 12
Cement and Concrete Research xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cement and Concrete Research
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : h t t p : / / e e s . e l s e v i e r. c o m / C E M C O N / d e f a u l t . a s p

Advances in alternative cementitious binders
M.C.G. Juenger a,⁎, F. Winnefeld b, J.L. Provis c, J.H. Ideker d
aUniversity of Texas at Austin, Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, 1 University Station C 1748, Austin, Texas 78712, USA Empa, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, Laboratory for Concrete and Construction Chemistry, Überlandstrasse 129, CH-8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland c University of Melbourne, Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering,Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia d Oregon State University, School of Civil & Construction Engineering, 220 Owen Hall, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
There is a burgeoning interest in the development, characterization, and implementation of alternatives to Portland cement as a binder in concrete. The construction materials industry is underincreasing pressure to reduce the energy used in production of Portland cement clinker and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. Further, Portland cement is not the ideal binder for all construction applications, as it suffers from durability problems in particularly aggressive environments. Several alternative binders have been available for almost as long as Portland cement, yet have not beenextensively used, and new ones are being developed. In this paper, four promising binders available as alternatives to Portland cement are discussed, namely calcium aluminate cement, calcium sulfoaluminate cement, alkali-activated binders, and supersulfated cements. The history of the binders, their compositions and reaction mechanisms, benefits and drawbacks, unanswered questions, and primary challengesare described. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 8 April 2010 Accepted 17 November 2010 Available online xxxx Keywords: A. Hydration D. Alkali-activated cement D. Calcium aluminate cement D. Sulfoaluminate D. Granulated blast furnace slag

Contents 1. 2. 3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Specifying alternative binders . . . . . . .. . . . . . . Alternative binders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Calcium aluminate cements . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1. Hydration and property development . . . 3.2. Calcium sulfoaluminate cements . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1. Raw materials and binder composition . . 3.2.2. Hydration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3. Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Alkali-activatedbinders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1. Reaction mechanisms and binder structure 3.3.2. Reaction kinetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3. Primary challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Supersulfated cements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1. Raw materials and binder composition . . 3.4.2. Hydration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.3. Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....