Ink-bottle effect in mercury intrusion porosimetry of cement-based materials.

Mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) is a widely used method for studying porous materials, in particular, cement-based materials. The usual interpretation of such measurements is based on certain assumptions. One of these is that each pore is connected to the sample surface directly or through larger pores. Pores not meeting this assumption are called ink-bottle pores. The effect that sample size has on the MIP characteristics of concrete samples, like the ink-bottle effect and hysteresis, was studied by measuring additional extrusion and intrusion cycles. In order to characterize the extrusion and ink-bottle behavior, the amount of entrapped mercury chi(p) was estimated. Superimposition of extrusion and second intrusion curves is achieved if the contact angle theta is adjusted from theta(i), the intrusion contact angle, to theta(e), the extrusion contact angle. The threshold radius is often assumed to be a dominant pore radius, yet in this study the entrapped mercury content shows no evidence for the presence of a dominant pore radius. Even if characteristic properties of cement-based materials can be estimated with MIP, comparison of results is rendered difficult by the significant effects of sample preparation techniques and sample size and the ink-bottle effect due to randomly present air bubbles.

[1]  S. Lowell,et al.  Influence of pore potential on hysteresis and entrapment in mercury porosimetry: Pore potential/hysteresis/porosimetry , 1982 .

[2]  M. Siitari-Kauppi,et al.  Imaging and analyzing rock porosity by autoradiography and Hg-porosimetry/X-ray computertomography—Applications , 1999 .

[3]  E. W. Washburn.  Note on a Method of Determining the Distribution of Pore Sizes in a Porous Material. , 1921, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  J. Lannutti,et al.  X‐ray Computed Tomography and Mercury Porosimetry for Evaluation of Density Evolution and Porosity Distribution , 2004 .

[5]  Sidney Diamond,et al.  Mercury porosimetry: An inappropriate method for the measurement of pore size distributions in cement-based materials , 2000 .

[6]  G. Androutsopoulos,et al.  TOMOGRAPHY OF MACRO-MESO-PORE STRUCTURE BASED ON MERCURY POROSIMETRY HYSTERESIS , 2000 .

[7]  M. Dubois,et al.  Mercury intrusion porosimetry and hierarchical structure of cement pastes: Theory and experiment , 2000 .

[8]  T. L. Brownyard,et al.  Studies of the Physical Properties of Hardened Portland Cement Paste , 1946 .

[9]  Constantinos E. Salmas,et al.  Mercury Porosimetry: Contact Angle Hysteresis of Materials with Controlled Pore Structure. , 2001, Journal of colloid and interface science.

[10]  R. Mann,et al.  MERCURY POROSIMETRY HYSTERESIS AND ENTRAPMENT PREDICTIONS BASED ON A CORRUGATED RANDOM PORE MODEL , 1991 .

[11]  K. Gabriel,et al.  The biplot graphic display of matrices with application to principal component analysis , 1971 .

[12]  J. Beaudoin,et al.  Pretreatment of hardened hydrated cement pastes for mercury intrusion measurements , 1991 .

[13]  I. Odler,et al.  Investigations on the structure of fully hydrated portland cement and tricalcium silicate pastes. II. Total porosity and pore size distribution , 1986 .

[14]  D. Winslow,et al.  The pore structure of paste in concrete , 1990 .

[15]  C. Tsakiroglou,et al.  A new simulator of mercury porosimetry for the characterization of porous materials , 1990 .

[16]  N. Wardlaw,et al.  Mercury porosimetry and the interpretation of pore geometry in sedimentary rocks and artificial models , 1981 .

[17]  P. Aitcin,et al.  The effect of drying on cement pastes pore structure as determined by mercury porosimetry , 1988 .

[18]  William N. Venables,et al.  Modern Applied Statistics with S-Plus. , 1996 .

[19]  H. Riesemeier,et al.  Rock porosity determination by combination of X-ray computerized tomography with mercury porosimetry , 1997 .

[20]  Constantinos E. Salmas,et al.  A SIMPLIFIED MODEL FOR MERCURY POROSIMETRY HYSTERESIS , 1999 .

[21]  T. C. Powers,et al.  Physical Properties of Cement Paste , 1960 .

[22]  S. Lowell,et al.  Powder surface area and porosity , 1984 .

[23]  S. Lowell,et al.  Hysteresis, entrapment, and wetting angle in mercury porosimetry , 1981 .

[24]  J. Van Brakel,et al.  Mercury porosimetry: state of the art , 1981 .

[25]  N. Morrow,et al.  Effects of sample size on capillary pressures in porous media , 1981 .

[26]  N. Wardlaw,et al.  Mercury Capillary Pressure Curves and the Intepretation of Pore Structure and Capillary Behaviour in Reservoir Rocks , 1976 .

[27]  S. Lowell,et al.  Theory of mercury porosimetry hysteresis , 1984 .

[28]  E. Garboczi,et al.  Percolation and pore structure in mortars and concrete , 1994 .

[29]  N. Wardlaw,et al.  Mechanisms of nonwetting phase trapping during imbibition at slow rates , 1986 .

[30]  D. Winslow,et al.  Sub-distributions of pore size: A new approach to correlate pore structure with permeability , 1995 .

[31]  S. Lowell,et al.  Influence of contact angle on hysteresis in mercury porosimetry , 1981 .

[32]  Douglas Windslow,et al.  A Mercury Porosimetry Study of the Evolution of Porosity in Portland Cement : Technical Publication , 1969 .

[33]  R. Mann,et al.  Evaluation of mercury porosimeter experiments using a network pore structure model , 1979 .

[34]  D. Winslow,et al.  Contact angle and damage during mercury intrusion into cement paste , 1985 .

[35]  Kenneth C. Hover,et al.  MERCURY POROSIMETRY OF CEMENT-BASED MATERIALS AND ASSOICATED CORRECTION FACTORS , 1993 .

[36]  G. Androutsopoulos,et al.  TOMOGRAPHY OF MACRO-MESO-PORE STRUCTURE BASED ON MERCURY POROSIMETRY HYSTERESIS LOOP SCANNING Part II: MP Hysteresis Loop Scanning Along the Overall Retraction Line , 2000 .