Carbon dioxide transport and uptake in concrete during accelerated carbonation curing
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the dominant greenhouse gas resulting from many anthropogenic activities, mainly combustion of fossil fuels. One of the strategies to mitigate CO2 emissions is considered to be carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). The current storage methods focus on enhanced oil recovery, underground geological storage, disposal in deep oceans, and ex situ mineral carbonation of abundant metal oxide minerals such as olivine, serpentinite and wollastonite.During mineral carbonation, a gas stream rich in CO2 is reacted with mineral metal oxides to form thermodynamically stable carbonates. These carbonated minerals, however, store CO2 but do not produce any materials that are of value. Accelerated carbonation curing of concrete can be used as a mineral sequestration method with the advantage of producing a value-added concrete product. During accelerated carbonation curing of concrete, CO2 is reacted with cement and stored as a solid calcium carbonate in concrete construction products. Among the concrete products, non-reinforced precast concrete, such as blocks and bricks, can be used for carbonation curing. In previous studies, pressurized chambers have been used for accelerated CO2 curing of concrete, where a high pressure of CO2 is required for sufficient gas diffusion in concrete and homogeneous carbonation. In this research, a flow-through carbonation reactor was used for concrete curing and the rate and extent of CO2 uptake by concrete was studied. One of the advantages of the carbonation reactor applied in this study is that significantly less energy for gas mixture compression is required compared to a CO2 pressure chamber.The overall objective of this thesis was to develop and assess the performance of an accelerated carbonation curing reactor for concrete using an advective flow of flue gas. The rate and extent of CO2 uptake by concrete in a 1-D flow-through carbonation reactor were studied and compared with the published results on CO2 uptake in pressurized chambers using diffusive flow of CO2. The factors limiting the CO2 uptake were studied through experimental observation as well as mathematical modeling of CO2 transport and reaction in concrete during accelerated carbonation curing. Carbonation efficiencies of 16-20% attained in the flow-through reactor were comparable to those obtained for static CO2 pressure chambers. The extent of CO2 uptake was limited by formation of solid calcium carbonate in micro-scale pores. Intermittent carbonation experiments showed that the carbonation efficiency was limited in part by slow dissolution and/or diffusion of dissolved reactive components in the concrete matrix. The electron microprobe imaging technique used in this study also confirmed formation of solid calcium carbonate which filled up the narrow pores (<4 µm). The uptake efficiency reached 67% when cement was carbonated in an aqueous suspension in a completely mixed flow-through reactor where the effect of pore blockage was eliminated and a higher percentage of reacting surface area was exposed to dissolved CO2. However, formation of a calcium carbonate layer still inhibited diffusion of dissolved calcium and CO2 through this layer. In the presence of the calcium carbonate layer and other carbonation products like silica (SiO2 gel), and at partial pressure of CO2 used for carbonation, the aqueous solution reached a chemical equilibrium and carbonation ceased before the maximum theoretical uptake could be achieved. The effect of physico-chemical processes on CO2 uptake during carbonation curing was also studied using a mathematical model. Equations describing the CO2 transport by advection and dispersion in concrete pore space, dissolution in pore water and reaction with reactive cement species were solved numerically. The initial concentration of cement species were calculated based on a hydration model which was developed to simulate the 4 hours of hydration time before carbonation starts.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».