Next Article in Journal
Segmental Regularized Constrained Inversion of Transient Electromagnetism Based on the Improved Sparrow Search Algorithm
Previous Article in Journal
Building an Information Modeling-Based System for Automatically Generating the Assembly Sequence of Precast Concrete Components Using a Genetic Algorithm
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 4
10.3390/app14041359
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Fabrication and Properties of Blended Calcium Sulfoaluminate Cements Based on Thermally Treated Reservoir Sediments

by
Antonio Telesca
and
Milena Marroccoli
*
School of Engineering, University of Basilicata, Via dell’Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(4), 1359; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14041359
Submission received: 9 January 2024 / Revised: 31 January 2024 / Accepted: 2 February 2024 / Published: 7 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Novel Construction Material and Its Applications)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In 2021, approximately 4.1 billion tonnes of cement were globally produced and the annual CO2 emissions from cement plants reached almost 2.8 billion metric tonnes. In recent years, many efforts have been made to manufacture low-CO2 cements. In this regard, great consideration has been given towards calcium sulfoaluminate (CSA) binders for both their technical features and sustainable properties, principally connected to their industrial process. The use of blended cements composed by CSA binders and supplementary cementitious materials (SCMS) can be an effective way to (a) reduce the CO2 footprint and (b) produce greener binders. This scientific work studied the utilization of different amounts (15–35 wt%) of calcined reservoir sediments (RS) as SCMS in blended CSA binders, where the binders were cured for up to 56 days and characterised by various analytical techniques. It was found that thermally treated RS were particularly noteworthy as their utilization allowed for a dilution of the CSA clinker, thus implying a decrease in CO2 emissions and a reduction in costs related to their production. However, compared to a plain CSA cement, the blended systems showed rather similar volume stability levels, whilst their compressive strength and porosity values were, respectively, lower and higher at all the investigated aging periods.

1. Introduction

The cement manufacturing process is one of the main contributors to global warming as well as climate change [1]. In 2021, approximately 4.1 billion tonnes of cement were manufactured [2] and the total carbon dioxide produced in cement plants was equal to approximately 2.8 billion metric tonnes, namely, about 7% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions [3]. It has been estimated that cement manufacture will rise between 12% and 23% by 2050 [4]. Nowadays, the cement industry is aiming at reducing its CO2 emissions to 1.9 billion metric tonnes/year by the end of 2050 [5]; therefore, cement producers and researchers have suggested several approaches aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, namely, (1) the use of non-fossil fuels and alternative raw materials (e.g., non-carbonated sources of calcium oxide for limestone in a raw mix for the synthesis of clinkers) [6,7]; (2) a reduction in the burning temperature (e.g., by means of mineralisers and/or fluxes) [8]; (3) an improvement in the technological process efficiency [2]; (4) the application of carbon capture and storage/utilization techniques to cement plants [9]; (5) a clinker-to-cement ratio reduction using supplementary cementitious materials [SCMs, e.g., ground granulated blast furnace slags (GGBFS), coal fly ash (CFA), silica fume, natural pozzolan, and calcined clay] to make blended cements [10,11,12,13,14]. Even if also in the future Portland cements will continue to play a leading role in the building sector, a further reduction in CO2 will come from the manufacture of alternative binders (SCs). SCs display peculiar technical properties that are useful in specific fields of application; in addition, their compositions can be exploited to give more environmentally friendly features to their production process. At present, there are several CO2-reducing cements, including belite-rich cements, alkali activated binders, geopolymers, magnesia cements, and calcium sulfoaluminate (CSA) binders [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46].
In this regard, there is noticeable interest in calcium sulfoaluminate (CSA) cements for their relevant technical properties [47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58] coupled with their environmentally friendly features [59,60]. CSA cements are obtained by mixing a clinker (derived from heating a meal composed of natural gypsum, bauxite, and limestone) with a source of calcium sulfate (e.g., anhydrite or natural gypsum). CSA binders contain calcium sulfoaluminate (3CaO·3Al2O3·CaSO4, ye’elimite) as a principal constituent and, on the basis of the burning temperature and the type and proportion of the raw materials, calcium sulfates, dicalcium silicate (2CaO·SiO2, belite), calcium aluminium ferrite (brownmillerite, 4CaO·Al2O3·Fe2O3) calcium sulfosilicate (sulfospurrite, 4CaO·2SiO2·CaSO4), and several calcium aluminates.
CSA cement’s technical features (e.g., its rapid hardening, high impermeability, and excellent dimensional stability) are mainly due to the ye’elimite’s hydration with CaSO4, which leads to the formation of 3CaO·Al2O3·3CaSO4·32H2O (ettringite).
Compared to ordinary Portland cement, CSA cements display the following sustainable characteristics: (1) reduced synthesis temperatures (<1350 °C); (2) lower limestone demand (usually <35%) in the clinker-generating raw meal; (3) lower energy requirements for the cement milling; and (4) a wider utilization of industrial wastes in the cement manufacturing process [61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71]. In order to further decrease the generation of CO2 and reduce their high costs (mainly depending on the utilization of bauxite), CSA cements can be blended with SCMs [72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80]. Nevertheless, in the near future, the availability of the traditional and most widespread industrial SCMs (e.g., GGBFS and CFA) will decrease because of the move in steel production to scrap recycling (from blast furnaces) as well as the gradual closing coal-fired power stations [11,13,81,82,83]. In this regard, to widen the availability of SCMs, it is necessary to look for alternative SCMS beyond GGBFS or CFA. The utilization of new waste materials undoubtedly represents an appealing opportunity to avoid them being disposed of in landfills, and offer valuable applications as SCMs.
Water reservoirs store fresh water which is generally piped to electric power stations and/or used for drinking as well as irrigation. The most important issues for these basins are silting phenomena which cause a reduction in the original storage capacity. To recover the original capacity, dredging operations are carried out, and they generate large amounts of sediments which are generally disposed of in landfills. The research conducted so far to avoid landfill disposal has evaluated the utilization of dredged sediments for the manufacture and production of lightweight aggregates, Portland cement clinker, concrete, and bricks as components for stabilised road-base as well as supplementary cementitious material in ordinary Portland-blended cements after a proper calcination treatment [84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98].
This study aimed at investigating the use of thermally treated (TT) clayish reservoir sediments (RS) as SCM in blended CSA binders, and the best treatment temperature (BT) allowed for the total conversion of the crystalline clay phases in the amorphous constituents (the process of dehydroxylation) [94]. Four TTRSBT-based CSA binders were investigated by means of hydration and physical-mechanical tests for curing times falling within the interval of 4 h–56 days. A plain CSA binder was employed as a benchmark. The effect of TTRSBT on both the hydration evolution and the technical behaviour of the CSA-blended binders was evaluated by using differential-thermal-thermogravimetric (DT-TG) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) measurements coupled with mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP), dimensional stability, and mechanical tests.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

An Italian cement manufacturer supplied the calcium sulfoaluminate binder and the RS came from the “Camastra” basin in Basilicata (Italy). Six sediment samples were taken from different locations within the bottom of the reservoir, and they were heated at 110 °C to remove the surface moisture; afterwards, they were all mixed together and milled to pass through a 90 μm sieve.

2.2. Methods and Evaluation Techniques

Three 100 g batches of RS were heated in a fixed electric oven for 120 min at 750 °C, 830 °C, and 900 °C ± 2 °C for evaluating the BT, which allowed for the total dehydroxylation process to occur, and the resulting materials were finely ground to below 90 μm in an FP6 mill (10 min at 450 rotations per minute) and characterised by XRD analysis.
The chemical analyses of the CSA binder, RS, and TTRS (obtained at the optimal synthesis temperature (TTRSBT)), determined using the X-ray fluorescence equipment (Explorer S4, BRUKER, Karlsruhe, Germany), are displayed in Table 1, and the most important CSA cement mineralogical phases are also shown. The XRD patterns of the RS and the three TTRS (Figure 1) were collected using a MINFLEX 600 (RIGAKU, Tokyo, Japan) diffractometer with CuKα radiation and a scan rate of 0.02°/step.
The following four CSA-based cements were examined: a pure CSA cement (C_R) and three CSA binders containing TTRSBT as a substitute for part of the C_R (15%, 25%, and 35% by mass; C_15, C_25, and C_35, respectively). Cementitious pastes were obtained by employing a water-to-cement (w/c) ratio of 0.50, and they were transferred into plastic cylindrical containers and stored in thermostatically controlled water (20 °C). After each chosen curing period (comprised in the interval of 4 h to 56 days), the hardened cylindric pastes were broken into the following two parts: one piece that underwent MIP analysis (Pascal 240 and 140, Thermo-Finnigan, Segrate (MI), Italy, Series porosimeters) and one that was milled (grain size of <90 μm) for the DT-TG (using NETZCH-TASC 414/3 equipment, Selb, Germany, operating at 10 °C/min in air) and XRD (using a D4 Endeavor, Bruker, Karlsruhe, Germany apparatus with CuKα-radiation and a scan rate of 0.02/step) analyses. The hydration stoppage was carried out by means of a solvent exchange method employing acetone (to remove free water) and diethyl ether (to reduce the acetone evaporation time), and finally, the hardened samples were stored in a desiccator over silica gel and soda lime to mitigate the actions of the water vapour and carbonation, respectively.
For the dimensional stability (expansion–shrinkage) tests, 24 prisms of cementitious paste (15 × 15 × 78 mm) were put into air at an ambient temperature for 24 h, and afterwards, they were demoulded. For each system, three prisms were submerged in water at 20 °C, and the other three were left in thermostatically controlled equipment (20 °C and 65% relative humidity). A mechanical length comparator device was employed to determine the dimensions of the paste samples at various hydration times. The mean length value was then calculated as the average of the three measurements.
The cement mortars were realised in accordance with the European Standard EN 196-1. The size of each specimen was 40 mm × 40 mm × 160 mm; they were subjected to both flexural and compressive strength tests at curing times falling in the range of 4 h–56 days.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Chemical and Mineralogical Characterization of the Raw Materials

The chemical analyses of the CSA cement, RS, and TTRSBT are illustrated in Table 1, which also shows the mineralogical composition of the binder evaluated by the Rietveld method (normalizing the results to only the detected crystalline phases).
The chemical analysis of the C_R revealed the presence of calcium, aluminium, sulfur, and silicon oxides (listed in the order of its main components). Moreover, the Rietveld evaluation denoted that 4CaO·3Al2O3·SO3 (43.0 mass%), β-2CaO·SiO2, 4CaO·Al2O3·Fe2O3, 3CaO·Al2O3 (tricalcium aluminate), and 2CaO·Al2O3·SiO2 (gehlenite) were, in the order, its main crystalline components; CaSO4, mainly coming from the added natural anhydrite to the clinker, was also present. As far as the reservoir sediments were concerned, from the results of the chemical composition, it was found that the silicon and aluminium oxides represented their principal components; additionally, CaO, was also revealed by the DT-TG investigation, and it was present as CaCO3. Therefore, the RS l.o.i. was due to both the CO2 and water in the argillaceous minerals.
Figure 1 displays the XRD patterns for the RS together with its corresponding thermally treated (at 750 °C, 830 °C, and 900 °C) materials.
Muscovite, kaolinite, quartz, and calcite were the key crystalline components of the RS. XRD patterns for the TTRS displayed the following: (I) the disappearance of the kaolinite at 750 °C; (II) reductions in the muscovite with increasing temperatures; and (III) the presence of alumoakermanite (identified for the first time at 830 °C), whose main peak increased as the temperature rose. Consequently, 830 °C (BT) represented the best temperature for avoiding the generation of novel unwanted phases coupled with the disappearance of phases already present. The Blaine specific surface areas (European Standard EN 196-6) were 4500 for the CSA and 3750 cm2/g for the TTRSBT.

3.2. DT-TG Results

Figure 2 reports the DT results for the C_R, C_15, C_25, and C_35 samples cured at 4 h and 1, 28, and 56 days. From the data published in [99], the following endothermal effects (in order of the increasing temperatures) were assigned to ettringite (E) and Al(OH)3 (aluminium hydroxide (AH)).
Except for the peak of the CaCO3, no relevant thermal (either exo/endo) effects were present above 500 °C, and for the examined cement pastes, the endothermal dehydration peaks, attributed to E and AH (already detectable after 4 h of hydration), were observed at 164 °C ± 5 °C and 287 °C ± 4 °C, respectively.
Overall, the thermogravimetric analyses revealed that the hydration behaviour was basically due to the reaction of the 4CaO·3Al2O3·SO3 with the CaSO4. The hydration behaviour of the systems was also assessed by means of the determination of the bound water content (CBW, Figure 3). It was evaluated considering the weight loss values up to 500 °C, normalised to 100 g of dry cement.
From Figure 3, it can be argued that the four systems followed an analogous trend during the first 24 h of aging. For that period, the hydration rate was quite high because of the fast ettringite formation; from 7 to 56 days of curing, the curves exhibited an almost constant value.

3.3. XRD Results

The XRD patterns (Figure 4) almost confirmed the indications obtained from both the DT analyses and bound water results; therefore, concerning the hydration products, ye’elimite and calcium sulfate reacted quickly and the 3CaO·Al2O3·3CaSO4·32H2O concentration grew for up to 28 days of aging. The aluminium hydroxide main peak was also found in all the hydrated systems.
Furthermore, belite was virtually not involved in the hydration process, owing to both the higher reaction kinetics of the calcium sulfoaluminate and the related rapid water consumption. Quartz signals, already present in the TTRSBT samples, were detected in all the investigated CSA-blended cements. Figure 5 shows the evolution of the ettringite vs. the curing time. Elevated quantities of ettringite had already formed after 4 h of hydration in all the systems; after 2 days, the 3CaO·Al2O3·3CaSO4·32H2O concentration almost reached its maximum value, and after that, it slightly rose until 28 days of curing.

3.4. Dimensional Stability Results

The curves related to the expansion (under water)–shrinkage (in air) tests are reported in Figure 6.
Both in air and submerged under water, the behaviours of the three blended cements were almost similar to each other and to that of the reference system. When aged in air, it was evident that there was constant shrinkage until nearly 2 weeks, when the lowest values were attained (−0.18%, −0.13%, −0.08%, and −0.07% for the C_R, C_15, C_25, and C_35 samples, respectively); afterwards, the shrinkage results were almost consistent. The highest values of expansion under water were reached after approximately 20 days of aging, and they were in the range 0.06–0.17%.

3.5. MIP Results

In Figure 7 the plots of the porosimetric tests for the pastes of the four examined cements are reported; its left and right sides, respectively, represent the derivative and cumulative pore volume (CPV) curves related to the intruded mercury for the calcium sulfoaluminate-based cements towards the pore radius for the aging periods ranging from 16 h–56 days. For the C_R sample (Figure 7a), all the derivative plots displayed unimodal distributions.
According to [100,101], MIP curves do not depict the actual distribution of pore sizes in hydrated cement paste systems. In fact, large internal pores (LIPs), communicating with the outside often only through smaller pores (SPs), cannot be filled until higher pressures, which are necessary for the mercury intrusion into the SPs, are reached. Consequently, nearly all the volumes of LIPs are erroneously assigned to the sizes of the SPs. In addition, measured porosity does not coincide with actual total porosity to the extent that (a) isolated pores, entirely sealed against intrusion, may exist as well, and (b) the finest pores to be intruded require pressure values higher than the maximum available pressure of commercial porosimeters. Nevertheless, to compare the four investigated systems, the derivative volume coupled with the CPV could be taken as a useful indicator of the process of space-filling and of pore refinement [102].
Over the aging period, the CPV as well as the threshold pore radius slightly decreased (from 142 to 123 mm3/g and from nearly 25 to 16 nm, respectively). Compared to the C_R sample, the TTRSBT-based cements showed similar behaviours; in fact, unimodal pore size distributions could be observed at any examined aging period. Moreover, for the C_15 sample, the CPV decreased nearly 30%, passing from 201 (at 16 h) to 140 mm3/g (after 2 days); at longer aging times, it was further reduced (to approximately 100 mm3/g after 56 days of hydration). Similarly, the pore widths ranged from 274 (at 16 h) to 120 nm (at 56 days). For the C_25 and C_35 samples, the CPVs decreased approximately 39% and 16%, respectively (going from 207 to 118 mm3/g and from 190 to 160 mm3/g, respectively), in the same time interval. In comparison with the C_15 sample, the C_25, and C_35 samples exhibited pore size distributions oriented towards higher radii at all the investigated curing times, being in the 315–160 nm and 400–240 nm intervals, respectively.
As a consequence of the fast hydration product generation for the C_R (revealed by both the XRD and DT-TG analyses), a region of lower porosity was quickly established; therefore, the hydration products lowered and separated the inner space. At longer aging periods, the porosity developed gradually to the extent that the hydration had approximately stopped. Due to the lack of phases (e.g., calcium hydroxide) able to react with the thermally treated reservoir sediments the investigated blended cements, in comparison with the C_R sample, they always displayed higher pore size distributions.
The total porosity percentage (TP) results vs. the aging period related to the four investigated cements are displayed in Figure 8, where the histograms show an evidently comparable trend for all the cement pastes such that their TP values decreased as the curing time increased.
In particular, at all the hydrations periods, the plain CSA showed the lowest TP values; moreover, it was found that the higher the CSA cement substitution, the higher the TP value. At 2 and 56 days of curing, the TP values for the C_R sample were 21.1% and 16.8%, respectively; at the same hydration periods, the TP values for the C_15, C_25, and C_35 samples were, respectively, 14.2%, 26.4%, and 29.2%, and these were 6.5%, 22.0%, and 38.0% higher, respectively, than those for the plain CSA. These results highlight that as the curing time increased, the differences in the TP values between the C_R, C_15, and C_25 samples decreased whilst that of the C_35 sample increased.

3.6. Mechanical Tests Results

Figure 9 shows the flexural strength results for the calcium sulfoaluminate-based mortars. The results for the three blended binders were always lower/slightly lower than those for the C_R sample.
In Figure 10 the compressive strength results for the calcium sulfoaluminate-based mortars are reported. The strength results for the three blended binders were always lower than those for the C_R mortars.
As the amount of thermally treated sediments increased in the blends, the compressive strength values decreased, thus revealing the almost inert behaviour of the reservoir sediments, especially for curing periods shorter than 56 days. This phenomenon is most likely due to the lack of a lime source able to react with the amorphous silica and alumina of the TTRSBT.
At 2 and 56 days of curing the compressive strength values for the C_R mortars were 52 MPa and 62 MPa, respectively; at the same hydration periods, the strength values for the C_15, C_25, and C_35 samples were, respectively, 15.4%, 19.2%, and 40.4%, which were 12.2%, 18.7%, and 35.0% higher, respectively, than those for the plain CSA. These results highlight that as the curing time increased, the differences in the mechanical compressive strength were reduced/slightly reduced for the investigated systems.
Figure 11(left) displays the compressive strength values vs. the bound water for the four investigated systems.
As the bound water content increased, the compressive strength increased, and a linear correlation was evidenced for all the data points. In Figure 11(right), the compressive mechanical strength values are reported as a function of the determined total porosity results; it was found that as the porosity values decreased, the compressive strength increased. Also in this case, a correlation between the total porosity and the compressive strength could be observed.

4. Conclusions

The work assessed the feasibility of utilizing clayish reservoir sediments (RS) as an SCM (supplementary cementitious material) in CSA (calcium-sulfoaluminate) cements. The RS were heated (TT) to 830 °C to obtain the amorphous constituents that were due to the dehydroxylation of the silico-aluminate crystalline components. TTRS were added at dosages of 15, 25, and 35% by weight, and the related binders were aged up to 56 days.
The key findings derived from the investigations are reported below:
(1)
when compared to plain CSA cement pastes, those based on blended CSA binders showed increased pore size distributions (as evidenced by the mercury intrusion investigations);
(2)
the mechanical strength decreased with increases in the TTRS replacement levels (the dilution effect), although the gaps for the plain CSA-based mortars were reduced as the curing time increased;
(3)
the X-ray diffraction and differential thermal-thermogravimetric results showed that the presence of thermally treated clayish reservoir sediments affected neither the creation of CSA hydration products nor the dimensional stability of cement pastes (when cured in both water and air).
The utilization of TTRS as SCM can allow both a reduction in the use of natural materials and the prevent the waste disposal in a landfill; in addition, it can permit the dilution of the CSA cement, which has implications for both the reduction of CO2 emissions and evident energy cuts per unit mass of binder.
Future research will deal with the study of the blended CSA cements cured for periods longer than 56 days; moreover, further studies will involve the utilization of TTRS in high-belite CSA and belite cements.

Author Contributions

A.T.: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing; M.M.: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Telesca, A.; Ibris, N.; Marroccoli, M. Use of Potabilized Water Sludge in the Production of Low-Energy Blended Calcium Sulfoaluminate Cements. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cembureau. Activity Report 2022; The European Cement Association, Cembureau: Brussels, Belgium, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  3. IEA. 2022. Available online: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/direct-emissions-intensity-of-cement-production-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2015-2030 (accessed on 24 November 2023).
  4. Supriya; Chaudhury, R.; Sharma, U.; Thapliyal, P.C.; Singh, L.P. Low-CO2 emission stategies to achieve net zero target in cement sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 417, 137466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sahu, S.; Meininger, R.C. Sustainability and durability of solidia cement concrete. Concr. Int. 2020, 42, 29–34. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chatziaras, N.; Psomopoulos, C.; Themelis, N.J. Use of waste derived fuels in cement industry: A review. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2016, 27, 178–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Telesca, A.; Marroccoli, M.; Tomasulo, M.; Valenti, G.L.; Dieter, H.; Montagnaro, F. Low-CO2 Cements from Fluidized Bed Process Wastes and Other Industrial By-Products. Comb. Sci. Technol. 2016, 188, 492–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Raina, K.; Yanakiraman, L.K. Use of mineralizer in black meal process for improved clinkerization and conservation of energy. Cem. Concr. Res. 1998, 28, 1093–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Schneider, M. The cement industry on the way to a low-carbon future. Cem. Concr. Res. 2019, 124, 105792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Juenger, M.C.G.; Snellings, R.; Bernal, S.A. Supplementary cementitious materials: New sources, characterization, and performance insights. Cem. Concr. Res. 2019, 122, 257–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Snellings, R.; Suraneni, P.; Skibsted, J. Future and emerging supplementary cementitious materials. Cem. Concr. Res. 2023, 173, 107199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Skibsted, I.; Snellings, R. Reactivity of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) in cement blends. Cem. Concr. Res. 2019, 124, 105799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Snellings, R.; Mertens, G.; Elsen, J. Supplementary cementitious materials. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 2012, 74, 211–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shah, I.H.; Miller, S.A.; Jiang, D.; Myers, R.J. Cement substitution with secondary materials can reduce annual global CO2 emissions by up to 1.3 gigatons. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 5758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Song, N.; Zhou, J.; Yang, F.; Lan, M.; Li, J.; Zhang, Z.; Chen, Z.; Xu, M.; Li, H.; Sanjayan, J.G. Analysis of theoretical carbon dioxide emissions from cement production: Methodology and application. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 334, 130270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Naqi, A.; Jang, J.G. Recent Progress in Green Cement Technology Utilizing Low- Carbon Emission Fuels and Raw Materials: A Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Shi, C.; Qu, B.; Provis, J.L. Recent progress in low-carbon binders. Cem. Concr. Res. 2019, 122, 227–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gartner, E.; Sui, T. Alternative cement clinkers. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 114, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gartner, E.; Hirao, H. A review of alternative approaches to the reduction of CO2 emissions associated with the manufacture of the binder phase in concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2015, 78, 126–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Juenger, M.C.G.; Winnefeld, F.; Provis, J.L.; Ideker, J.H. Advances in alternative cementitious binders. Cem. Concr. Res. 2011, 41, 1232–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Boháč, M.; Staněk, T.; Zezulová, A.; Rybová, A.; Kubátová, D.; Novotný, R. Early Hydration of Activated Belite-Rich Cement. Adv. Mat. Res. 2019, 1151, 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dahhou, M.; El Hamidi, A.; El Moussaouiti, M.; Arshad, M.A. Synthesis and characterization of belite clinker by sustainable utilization of alumina sludge and natural fluorite (CaF2). Materialia 2021, 20, 101204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Staněk, T.; Sulovský, P. Active low-energy belite cement. Cem. Concr. Res. 2015, 68, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cuesta, A.; Ayuela, A.; Aranda, M.A.G. Belite Cements and their Activation. Cem. Concr. Res. 2021, 140, 106319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Morales-Cantero, A.; Cuesta, A.; De la Torre, A.G.; Santacruz, I.; Mazanec, O.; Borralleras, P.; Weldert, K.S.; Gastaldi, D.; Canonico, F.; Aranda, M.G.A. C-S-H seeding activation of Portland and Belite cements: An enlightening in situ synchrotron powder diffraction study. Cem. Concr. Res. 2022, 161, 106946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kong, Y.K.; Kurumisawa, K. Fresh properties and characteristic testing methods for alkali-activated materials: A review. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 75, 106830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ponomar, V.; Yliniemi, J.; Adesanya, E.; Ohenoja, K.; Illikainen, M. An overview of the utilisation of Fe-rich residues in alkali-activated binders: Mechanical properties and state of iron. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 330, 129900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nehdi, M.; Yassine, A. Mitigating Portland cement CO2 emissions using alkali-activated materials: System dynamics model. Materials 2020, 13, 4685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kumar, S.; Kumar, R. Geopolymer: Cement for low carbon economy. Indian Concr. J. 2014, 88, 29–37. [Google Scholar]
  30. Muhammad, R.M.; Butt, F. Behavior of quarry rock dust, fly ash and slag based geopolymer concrete columns reinforced with steel fibers under Eccentric loading. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Capasso, I.; Liguori, B.; Ferone, C.; Caputo, D.; Cioffi, R. Strategies for the valorization of soil waste by geopolymer production: An overview. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 288, 125646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sandanayake, M.; Law, D.; Sargent, P. A new framework for assessing the environmental impacts of circular economy friendly soil waste-based geopolymer cements. Build. Environ. 2022, 210, 108702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zakka, W.P.; Shukor Lim, N.H.A.; Khun, M.C. A scientometric review of geopolymer concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dung, N.T.; Unluer, C. Advances in the hydration of reactive MgO cement blends incorporating different magnesium carbonates. Constr. Build. Mat. 2021, 294, 123573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Meng, D.; Unluer, C.; Yang, E.-H.; Qian, S. Recent advances in magnesium-based materials: CO2 sequestration and utilization, mechanical properties and environmental impact. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2023, 138, 104983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mi, T.; Yang, E.-H.; Unluer, C. Investigation of the properties of reactive MgO-based cements and their effect on performance. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2023, 138, 104984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Soares, E.G.; Castro-Gomes, J.; Sitarz, M.; Zdeb, T.; Hager, I.; Hassan, K.; Al-Kuwari, M.S. Carbonation curing influencing factors of carbonated reactive magnesia cements (CRMC)—A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 305, 127210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Soares, E.G.; Castro-Gomes, J.; Sitarz, M.; Zdeb, T.; Hager, I.; Hassan, K.; Al-Kuwari, M.S. Feasibility for co-utilisation of Carbonated Reactive Magnesia Cement (CRMC) and industrial wastes in circular economy and CO2 mineralisation. Construct. Build. Mater. 2022, 323, 126488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nobre, J.; Ahmed, H.; Bravo, M.; Evangelista, L.; de Brito, J. Magnesia (MgO) production and characterization, and its influence on the performance of cementitious materials: A review. Materials 2020, 13, 4752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tao, Y.; Rahul, A.V.; Mohan, M.K.; De Schutter, G.; Van Tittelboom, K. Recent progress and technical challenges in using calcium sulfoaluminate (CSA) cement. Cem. Concr. Comp. 2023, 137, 104908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chaunsali, P.; Vaishnav, K. Calcium-sulfoaluminate-belite cements: Opportunities and challenge. Indian Concr. J. 2020, 94, 18–25. [Google Scholar]
  42. Marin, B.C.; Voicu, G.; Stoleriu, S. Synthesis of high-performance CSA cements as low carbon OPC alternative. Materials 2021, 14, 7057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gastaldi, D.; Bertola, F.; Irico, S.; Paul, G.; Canonico, F. Hydration behavior of cements with reduced clinker factor in mixture with sulfoaluminate binder. Cem. Concr. Res. 2021, 139, 106261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chitvoranund, N.; Winnefeld, F.; Hargis, C.W.; Sinthupinyo, S.; Lothenbach, B. Synthesis and hydration of alite-calcium sulfoaluminate cement. Adv. Cem. Res. 2017, 29, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yao, X.; Yang, S.; Dong, H.; Wu, S.; Liang, X.; Wang, W. Effect of CaO content in raw material on the mineral composition of ferric-rich sulfoaluminate clinker. Construct. Build. Mater. 2020, 263, 120431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hanein, T.; Duvallet, T.Y.; Jewell, R.B.; Oberlink, A.E.; Robl, T.L.; Zhou, Y.; Glasser, F.P.; Bannerman, M.N. Alite calcium sulfoaluminate cement: Chemistry and thermodynamics. Adv. Cem. Res. 2019, 31, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Telesca, A.; Marroccoli, M.; Pace, M.L.; Tomasulo, M.; Valenti, G.L.; Monteiro, P.J.M. A hydration study of various calcium sulfoaluminate cements. Cem. Concr. Comp. 2014, 53, 224–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mohan, M.K.; Rahul, A.V.; De Schutter, G.; Van Tittelboom, K. Early age hydration, rheology and pumping characteristics of CSA cement-based 3D printable concrete. Constr. Build. Mat. 2021, 275, 122136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sirtoli, D.; Wyrzykowski, M.; Riva, P.; Tortelli, S.; Marchi, M.; Lura, P. Shrinkage and creep of high-performance concrete based on calcium sulfoaluminate cement. Cem. Concr. Comp. 2019, 98, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pimraksa, K.; Chindaprasirt, P. Sulfoaluminate cement-based concrete. In Eco-Efficient Repair and Rehabilitation of Concrete Infrastructures; Pacheco-Torgal, F., Melchers, R.E., Shi, X., Belie, N.D., Tittelboom, K.V., S’aez, A., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2018; Chapter 14; pp. 355–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bertola, F.; Gastaldi, D.; Irico, S.; Paul, G.; Canonico, F. Influence of the amount of calcium sulfate on physical/mineralogical properties and carbonation resistance of CSA-based cements. Cem. Concr. Res. 2022, 151, 106634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yang, Z.; Ye, H.; Yuan, Q.; Li, B.; Li, Y.; Zhou, D. Factors influencing the hydration, dimensional stability, and strength development of the OPC-CSA-Anhydrite ternary system. Materials 2021, 14, 7001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tan, B.; Okoronkwo, M.U.; Kumar, A.; Ma, H. Durability of calcium sulfoaluminate cement concrete. J. Zhejiang Univ.-Sci. 2020, 21, 118–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chen, I.A.; Hargis, C.W.; Juenger, M.C.G. Understanding expansion in calcium sulfoaluminate-belite cements. Cem. Concr. Res. 2012, 42, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wang, L.; Zhan, S.; Tang, X.; Xu, Q.; Qian, K. Pore Solution Chemistry of Calcium Sulfoaluminate Cement and Its Effects on Steel Passivation. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mobili, A.; Belli, A.; Giosué, C.; Telesca, A.; Marroccoli, M.; Tittarelli, F. Calcium sulfoaluminate, geopolimeric, and cementitious mortars for structural applications. Environments 2017, 4, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kiventerä, J.; Piekkari, K.; Isteri, V.; Ohenoja, K.; Tanskanen, P.; Illikainen, M. Solidification/stabilization of gold mine tailings using calcium sulfoaluminate-belite cement. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 239, 118008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Coppola, L.; Coffetti, D.; Crotti, E. An holistic approach to a sustainable future in concrete construction. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 442, 012024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ren, C.; Wang, W.; Mao, Y.; Yuan, X.; Song, Z.; Sun, J.; Zhao, X. Comparative life cycle assessment of sulfoaluminate clinker production derived from industrial solid wastes and conventional raw materials. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 116, 1314–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Marroccoli, M.; Montagnaro, F.; Telesca, A.; Valenti, G.L. Environmental implications of the manufacture of calcium sulfoaluminate-based cements. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies, Ancona, Italy, 28–30 June 2010; Zachar, J., Claisse, P., Naik, T.R., Ganjiam, E., Eds.; UWM Center for By-Products Utilization: Milwaukee, WI, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  61. Adolfsson, D.; Menad, N.; Viggh, E.; Bjorkman, B. Steelmaking slags as raw material for sulphoaluminate belite cement. Adv. Cem. Res. 2007, 19, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. El-Alfi, E.A.; Gado, R.A. Preparation of calcium sulfoaluminate-belite cement from marble sludge waste. Constr. Build. Mat. 2016, 113, 764–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Isteri, V.; Ohenoja, K.; Hanein, T.; Kinoshita, H.; Tanskanen, P.; Illikainen, M.; Fabritius, T. Production and properties of ferrite-rich CSAB cement from metallurgical industry residues. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 712, 136208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chen, I.A.; Juenger, M.C.G. Incorporation of coal combustion residuals into calcium sulfoaluminate-belite cement clinkers. Cem. Concr. Comp. 2012, 34, 893–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Isteri, V.; Ohenoja, K.; Hanein, T.; Kinoshita, H.; Kletti, H.; R¨oßler, C.; Tanskanen, P.; Illikainen, M.; Fabritius, T. Ferritic calcium sulfoaluminate belite cement from metallurgical industry residues and phosphogypsum: Clinker production, scale-up, and microstructural characterization. Cem. Concr. Res. 2022, 154, 106715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Telesca, A.; Marroccoli, M.; Winnefeld, F. Synthesis and characterization of calcium sulfoaluminate cements produced by different chemical gypsums. Adv. Cem. Res. 2019, 31, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Telesca, A.; Matschei, T.; Marroccoli, M. Study of eco-friendly belite-calcium sulfoaluminate cements obtained from special wastes. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Galluccio, S.; Beirau, T.; Pollmann, H. Maximization of the reuse of industrial residues for the production of eco-friendly CSA-belite clinker. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 208, 250–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Shen, Y.; Qian, J.; Chai, J.; Fan, Y. Calcium sulphoaluminate cements made with phosphogypsum: Production issues and material properties. Cem. Concr. Res. 2014, 48, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Marroccoli, M.; Pace, M.L.; Telesca, A.; Valenti, G.L. Synthesis of calcium sulfoaluminate cements from Al2O3-rich by-products from aluminium manufacture. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies, Ancona, Italy, 28–30 June 2010; Zachar, J., Claisse, P., Naik, T.R., Ganjiam, E., Eds.; UWM Center for By-Products Utilization: Milwaukee, WI, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  71. Arjunan, P.; Silsbee, M.R.; Roy, D.M. Sulfoaluminate-belite cement from low-calcium fly ash and sulfur-rich and other industrial by-products. Cem. Concr. Res. 1999, 29, 1305–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. García-Maté, M.; De la Torre, A.G.; Leon-Reina, L.; Aranda, M.A.G.; Santacruz, I. Hydration studies of calcium sulfoaluminate cements blended with fly ash. Cem. Concr. Res. 2013, 54, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hargis, C.W.; Telesca, A.; Monteiro, P.J.M. Calcium sulfoaluminate (Ye’elimite) hydration in the presence of gypsum, calcite, and vaterite. Cem. Concr. Res. 2014, 65, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lukas, H.J.; Winnefeld, F.; Tschopp, E.; Müller, C.J.; Lothenbach, B. Influence of fly ash on the hydration of calcium sulfoaluminate cement. Cem. Concr. Res. 2017, 95, 152–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Martin, L.H.J.; Winnefeld, F.; Müller, C.J.; Lothenbach, B. Contribution of limestone to the hydration of calcium sulfoaluminate cement. Cem. Concr. Comp. 2015, 62, 204–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Pelletier-Chaignat, L.; Winnefeld, F.; Lothenbach, B.; Müller, C.J. Beneficial use of limestone filler with calcium sulfoaluminate cement. Constr. Build. Mat. 2012, 26, 619–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bertola, F.; Gastaldi, D.; Canonico, F.; Paul, G. CSA and slag: Towards CSA composite binders. Adv. Cem. Res. 2019, 31, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Yoon, H.N.; Seo, J.; Kim, S.; Lee, H.K.; Park, S. Hydration of calcium sulfoaluminate cement blended with blast-furnace slag. Const. Build. Mater. 2021, 268, 121214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gao, D.; Zhang, Z.; Meng, Y.; Tang, J.; Yang, L. Effect of Flue Gas Desulfurization Gypsum on the Properties of Calcium Sulfoaluminate Cement Blended with Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag. Materials 2021, 14, 382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Kim, T.; Seo, K.-Y.; Kang, C.; Lee, T.-K. Development of Eco-Friendly Cement Using a Calcium Sulfoaluminate Expansive Agent Blended with Slag and Silica Fume. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. IEA. Net Zero by 2050. A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector; IEA: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  82. Eurofer. Low Carbon Roadmap. Pathways to a CO2-Neutral European Steel Industry; Eurofer: Brussels, Belgium, 2019; Available online: https://www.eurofer.eu/assets/Uploads/EUROFER-Low-Carbon-Roadmap-Pathways-to-a-CO2-neutral-European-Steel-Industry.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2024).
  83. Snellings, R. Assessing, understanding and unlocking supplementary cementitious materials. RILEM Tech. Lett. 2016, 1, 50–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Molino, B.; De Vincenzo, A.; Ferone, C.; Messina, F.; Colangelo, F.; Cioffi, R. Recycling of clay sediments for geopolymer binder production. A new perspective for reservoir management in the framework of Italian legislation: The Occhito reservoir case study. Materials 2014, 7, 5603–5616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Hussain, M.; Levacher, D.; Leblanc, N.; Zmamou, H.; Djeran-Maigre, I.; Razakamanantsoa, A.; Saouti, L. Reuse of harbour and river dredged sediments in adobe bricks. Clean. Mater. 2022, 3, 100046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Brils, J.; de Boer, P.; Mulder, J.; de Boer, E. Reuse of dredged material as a way to tackle societal challenges. J. Soils Sediments 2014, 14, 1638–1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Crocetti, P.; González-Camejo, J.; Li, K.; Foglia, A.; Eusebi, A.; Fatone, F. An overview of operations and processes for circular management of dredged sediments. Waste Manag. 2022, 146, 20–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Soleimani, T.; Hayek, M.; Junqua, G.; Salgues, M.; Souche, J.C. Environmental, economic and experimental assessment of the valorization of dredged sediment through sand substitution in concrete. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 858, 159980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Ferone, C.; Liguori, B.; Capasso, I.; Colangelo, F.; Cioffi, R.; Cappelletto, E.; Di Maggio, R. Thermally treated clay sediments as geopolymer source material. Appl. Clay Sci. 2015, 107, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Anger, B.; Moulin, I.; Commene, J.P.; Thery, F.; Levacher, D. Fine-grained reservoir sediments: An interesting alternative raw material for Portland cement clinker production. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2017, 23, 957–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Faure, A.; Smith, A.; Coudray, C.; Anger, B.; Colina, H.; Moulin, I.; Thery, F. Ability of Two Dam Fine-Grained Sediments to be Used in Cement Industry as Raw Material for Clinker Production and as Pozzolanic Additional Constituent of Portland-Composite Cement. Waste Biomass Valorization 2017, 8, 2141–2163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Snellings, R.; Cizer, Ö.; Horckmans, L.; Durdziński, P.T.; Dierckx, P.; Nielsen, P.; Van Balen, K.; Vandewalle, L. Properties and pozzolanic reactivity of flash calcined dredging sediments. Appl. Clay Sci. 2016, 129, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Martellotta, A.M.N.; Petrella, A.; Gentile, F.; Levacher, D.; Piccinni, A.F. Reuse of Lake Sediments in Sustainable Mortar. Environments 2023, 10, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Mohammed, S. Processing effect and reactivity assessment of artificial pozzolans obtained from clays and clay wastes: A review. Constr. Build. Mat. 2017, 140, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Zhao, Z.; Benzerzour, M.; Abriak, N.E.; Damidot, D.; Courard, L.; Wang, D. Use of uncontaminated marine sediments in mortar and concrete by partial substitution of cement. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2018, 93, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Aoual-Benslafa, F.K.; Kerdal, D.; Ameur, M.; Mekerta, B.; Semcha, A. Durability of mortars made with dredged sediments. Procedia Eng. 2015, 118, 240–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Rozière, E.; Samara, M.; Loukili, A.; Damidot, D. Valorisation of sediments in self-consolidating concrete: Mix-design and microstructure. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 81, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Chu, D.C.; Kleib, J.; Amar, M.; Benzerzour, M.; Abriak, N.E. Recycling of dredged sediment as a raw material for the manufacture of Portland cement-Numerical modeling of the hydration of synthesized cement using the CEMHYD3D code. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 48, 103871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Taylor, H.F.W. Cement Chemistry, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1997; p. 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Cook, R.A.; Hover, K.C. Mercury porosimetry of hardened cement pastes. Cem. Concr. Res. 1999, 29, 933–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Diamond, S. Mercury porosimetry—An inappropriate method for the measurement of pore size distributions in cement-based materials. Cem. Concr. Res. 2000, 30, 1517–1525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Bernardo, G.; Telesca, A.; Valenti, G.L. A porosimetric study of calcium sulfoaluminate cement pastes cured at early ages. Cem. Concr. Res. 2006, 36, 1042–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 14 01359 g001
Figure 1. XRD patterns for the RS and the corresponding samples burnt at 750 °C to 900 °C. Aa, alumoakermanite ((Ca,Na)2(Al,Mg,Fe++)(Si2O7)); A, anorthite (CaAl2Si2O8); C, calcite (CaCO3); K, kaolinite (Al2Si2O5(OH)4); M, muscovite (KAl2(Si3Al)O10(OH,F)2); Q, quartz (SiO2).
Figure 1. XRD patterns for the RS and the corresponding samples burnt at 750 °C to 900 °C. Aa, alumoakermanite ((Ca,Na)2(Al,Mg,Fe++)(Si2O7)); A, anorthite (CaAl2Si2O8); C, calcite (CaCO3); K, kaolinite (Al2Si2O5(OH)4); M, muscovite (KAl2(Si3Al)O10(OH,F)2); Q, quartz (SiO2).
Applsci 14 01359 g001
Applsci 14 01359 g002
Figure 2. DT curves for the cement pastes: (a) C_R, (b) C_15, (c) C_25, and (d) C_35 at 4 h and 1, 28, and 56 d of hydration. E, ettringite; AH, aluminium hydroxide.
Figure 2. DT curves for the cement pastes: (a) C_R, (b) C_15, (c) C_25, and (d) C_35 at 4 h and 1, 28, and 56 d of hydration. E, ettringite; AH, aluminium hydroxide.
Applsci 14 01359 g002
Applsci 14 01359 g003
Figure 3. Chemically bound water calculated by TG until 56 days of aging (g/100 g of anhydrous cement) for the C_R, C_15, C_25, and C_35 cement pastes vs. aging time.
Figure 3. Chemically bound water calculated by TG until 56 days of aging (g/100 g of anhydrous cement) for the C_R, C_15, C_25, and C_35 cement pastes vs. aging time.
Applsci 14 01359 g003
Applsci 14 01359 g004
Figure 4. XRD patterns of the C_R (A), C_15 (B), C_25 (C), and C_35 (D) hydrated for 4 (down) hours and for 2 (middle) and 28 (up) days. A, anhydrite; E, ettringite; G, aluminium hydroxide; Q, quartz; Y, ye’elimite.
Figure 4. XRD patterns of the C_R (A), C_15 (B), C_25 (C), and C_35 (D) hydrated for 4 (down) hours and for 2 (middle) and 28 (up) days. A, anhydrite; E, ettringite; G, aluminium hydroxide; Q, quartz; Y, ye’elimite.
Applsci 14 01359 g004
Applsci 14 01359 g005
Figure 5. Ettringite concentrations (evaluated by means of the Rietveld analysis) for the C_R, C_15, C_25, and C_35 samples evaluated for the interval of 4 h–28 days.
Figure 5. Ettringite concentrations (evaluated by means of the Rietveld analysis) for the C_R, C_15, C_25, and C_35 samples evaluated for the interval of 4 h–28 days.
Applsci 14 01359 g005
Applsci 14 01359 g006
Figure 6. Expansion/shrinkage plots for the four CSA systems (cured in water and in air).
Figure 6. Expansion/shrinkage plots for the four CSA systems (cured in water and in air).
Applsci 14 01359 g006
Applsci 14 01359 g007
Figure 7. Derivative (right) and cumulative (left) mercury intruded volume vs. pore radius for the C_R (a), C_15 (b), C_25 (c), and C_35 (d) samples hydrated for 16 h and 2, 28, and 56 days.
Figure 7. Derivative (right) and cumulative (left) mercury intruded volume vs. pore radius for the C_R (a), C_15 (b), C_25 (c), and C_35 (d) samples hydrated for 16 h and 2, 28, and 56 days.
Applsci 14 01359 g007
Applsci 14 01359 g008
Figure 8. TP for the C_R, C_15, C_25, and C_35 pastes hydrated for 16 h and 2, 28, and 56 days.
Figure 8. TP for the C_R, C_15, C_25, and C_35 pastes hydrated for 16 h and 2, 28, and 56 days.
Applsci 14 01359 g008
Applsci 14 01359 g009
Figure 9. Results of the flexural mechanical tests of the C_R, C_15, C_25, and C_35 mortars at different curing times.
Figure 9. Results of the flexural mechanical tests of the C_R, C_15, C_25, and C_35 mortars at different curing times.
Applsci 14 01359 g009
Applsci 14 01359 g010
Figure 10. Results of the compressive mechanical tests of the C_R, C_15, C_25, and C_35 mortars at different curing times.
Figure 10. Results of the compressive mechanical tests of the C_R, C_15, C_25, and C_35 mortars at different curing times.
Applsci 14 01359 g010
Applsci 14 01359 g011
Figure 11. Compressive strength related to bound water, as determined by the TG weight loss at 500 °C (normalised to CSA anhydrous cement) (left). Compressive strength compared to evaluated total porosity (right).
Figure 11. Compressive strength related to bound water, as determined by the TG weight loss at 500 °C (normalised to CSA anhydrous cement) (left). Compressive strength compared to evaluated total porosity (right).
Applsci 14 01359 g011
Table 1. Chemical and phase compositions (solely for the C_R) of the employed cement components (mass %).
Table 1. Chemical and phase compositions (solely for the C_R) of the employed cement components (mass %).
Chemical CompositionMineralogical Phase Composition
CSA CementRSTTCRSBTCSA CementICDD Ref. Number
CaO44.589.0510.10Ye’elimite30-025643.0
SiO28.9551.8658.11β-belite33-030221.7
Al2O322.4213.4815.26Celite38-14293.8
Fe2O31.865.165.10Anhydrite37-149619.1
TiO21.100.650.76Calcite05-05861.1
K2O0.301.741.94Brownmillerite30-02564.5
MnO0.080.150.17Gehlenite73-20411.6
Na2O0.080.810.90Others 5.2
MgO0.942.042.26
SO316.850.220.46
P2O50.050.150.18
L.o.i *2.1614.502.70
Total99.3799.8197.94Total 100.0
* L.o.i, loss on ignition evaluated at 950 °C ± 10 °C.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Telesca, A.; Marroccoli, M. Fabrication and Properties of Blended Calcium Sulfoaluminate Cements Based on Thermally Treated Reservoir Sediments. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1359. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14041359

AMA Style

Telesca A, Marroccoli M. Fabrication and Properties of Blended Calcium Sulfoaluminate Cements Based on Thermally Treated Reservoir Sediments. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(4):1359. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14041359

Chicago/Turabian Style

Telesca, Antonio, and Milena Marroccoli. 2024. "Fabrication and Properties of Blended Calcium Sulfoaluminate Cements Based on Thermally Treated Reservoir Sediments" Applied Sciences 14, no. 4: 1359. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14041359

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop