Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1617/s11527-014-0431-3
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
J. Duchesne
Departement de geologie et de genie geologique,
Universite Laval, Pavillon Adrien-Pouliot, local 4507,
1065, ave de la Medecine, Quebec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
M. C. G. Juenger
Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental
Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 301 E. Dean
Keeton St. C 1748, Austin, TX 78712, USA
S. A. Bernal J. L. Provis
Department of Materials Science and Engineering,
University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 3JD, UK
L. Courard S. Leroy
GeMMe Research Group, ArGEnCo Department,
University of Liege, Liege, Belgium
A. Klemm
Department of Construction and Surveying, School of
Engineering and Built Environment, Glasgow Caledonian
University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow G4 0BA, UK
1 Introduction
The use of supplementary cementitious materials
(SCMs) such as fly ash, blast furnace slag, and silica
fume in the concrete industry has increased worldwide
over the past decades [1]. They are added to concrete
as part of the total cementitious system, as a partial
replacement of Portland cement. The use of SCMs in
concrete production is desirable both for emission
reduction and energy conservation as well as for the
improvement of concrete mechanical and durability
properties [2]. SCMs are mostly by-products of
industrial processes [3] and in most cases the quality
of these materials is less controlled during their
production than in the direct production of a primary
product from a purpose-designed process, resulting in
materials with varied characteristics [4].
The performance of SCMs in concrete is strongly
dependent on their physical, mineralogical and chemical characteristics, which vary depending on the
nature and source of the SCMs. In a recent review [5]
of the available techniques that are currently used for
the determination of fineness of SCMs, it was identified that the standardized methods developed for
Portland cement characterization are usually applied
to SCMs without any adaptation. These methods
include sieving analysis, air-permeability test
(Blaine), nitrogen sorption with BrunauerEmmett
Teller (BET) analysis, laser diffraction (LD), and
image analysis. Detailed information of the principles
of each of these techniques and their application to
SCMs is given in [5]. In the context of the present
study, a brief overview of the available standards or
recommendations for each of the methods mentioned
previously is given:
The European Standard EN 196-6 [6] describes the
dry sieving method for the determination of the
retention on sieving of particles which substantially
pass a 2.0 mm test sieve. ASTM C430 [7] standard
gives an alternative wet sieving method for the
determination of fineness of hydraulic cement based
on the retained material on the no. 325 sieve (45 lm
opening size). A specific standard for the determination of fineness of fly ash by wet sieving method is the
EN 451-2 [8] standard.
Blaine fineness is determined by the air-permeability test and is a single parameter that is meant to
characterize the fineness of a cement powder. Two
updated standards are currently used applying this
determination of the pore size distribution, is introduced in this study as a potential method that can also
be used for the determination of particle size distribution of SCMs. Particle size distribution (PSD) by
MIP is derived from Mayer and Stowes [13]
relationship established between particle size and
breakthrough pressure required to fill the interstitial
voids between a packed bed of spheres. Following the
development of PSD by MIP, Mayer and Stowe
presented the benefits of the spherical model for
characterising certain types of porous solids, over that
of the cylindrical model [14].
However, the standard methods used to determine
particle characteristics for cement may not be as
accurate when applied to SCMs. For instance, the air
permeability test for specific surface area (Blaine),
which is widely used for characterizing Portland
cements [15], relies on the assumptions that there is a
relatively limited range of particle sizes in the
material, with consistent inter-particle interactions,
and that there are available, internationally accepted
reference powders with properties similar to the
material of interest. In addition to the fact that these
conditions may not apply for all SCMs, the lack of an
appropriate reference material is also a restraining
factor for this technique [5].
The objective of this paper is to determine the
physical properties of selected SCMs, in order to
identify the factors that induce variations in the results
obtained from the different techniques, and suggest the
most suitable techniques and methods that can be
applied to physically characterize SCMs.
FA1
FA2
BFS1
BFS2
SF
SiO2
54.19
51.37
36.37
33.86
95.60
Al2O3
23.5
28.71
9.83
8.91
0.34
5.10
0.26
0.69
0.11
Fe2O3
7.92
CaO
3.02
3.56
41.24
42.64
0.23
MgO
1.92
1.01
7.41
7.39
0.37
Na2O
1.08
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.28
K2O
3.38
1.77
0.41
0.52
0.92
P2O5
0.27
0.64
0.08
SO3
0.94
1.11
1.62
1.62
0.28
0.001
0.02
0.01
ClReactive SiO2
0.003
41.86
37.48
\0.1
Free CaO
0.1
Na-equivalent
3.31
1.46
0.28
0.28
LOI
1.84
3.6
1.3
1.66
Density (g/cm3)
2.136
2.221
2.784
2.924
2.217
2.2 Methods
2.1 Materials
Fig. 1 Scanning electron microscope micrographs of: A fly ash particles (spherical); B slag particles (irregular); C and D densified
silica fume agglomerates (spherical porous particles)
particle size distribution of each of the SCMs evaluated using the light scattering technique. This is
described in the Sect. 3.
The fly ashes tested pass the ASTM C618 [23] fineness
criterion for fly ash and natural pozzolans, with less
than 34 % of the material retained on the 45 lm sieve;
the blast furnace slags passed the ASTM C989 [24]
fineness criterion with less than 20 % of the material
retained on the 45 lm sieve. Silica fume was not
tested using this method because the criteria established are only for fly ash and natural pozzolans. Sieve
analysis is not an appropriate test method for assessing
fineness of silica fume.
The results of the wet-sieve analysis are shown in
Table 2. The BFS1 sample had clumps of particles
retained on the sieve after testing, as shown in Fig. 2.
It can be concluded that clumping of particles causes
potentially erroneous results. It is clear that materials
should be adequately dispersed before testing, a step
which is not specified in the ASTM C430 [7] standard.
Wet sieving
BET
Specific
surface
area SSA
(m2/kg)
Sample
ID
Original plunger
Modified plunger
Calculated
mass (g)
Measured
mass (g)
Specific
surface
area SSA
(m2/kg)
Calculated
mass (g)
Measured
mass (g)
Specific
surface
area SSA
(m2/kg)
% retained
on sieve
FA1
2.0056
2.0056
0.50
253
2.1060
2.1063
0.50
240
20.82
452
FA2
2.0859
2.0861
0.50
367
2.1903
2.1902
0.50
387
14.67
560
BFS1
2.6142
2.5506
0.51
373
2.7451
2.6502
0.52
369
11.31
1025
BFS2
SF
1.52
2.0822
2.1864
721
17102
Percent of material passing the no. 325 (45 lm) sieve on wet-sieving following ASTM C430. Specific surface area measured by BET
method
Fig. 2 BFS1 retained on no. 325 (45 lm) sieve after wetsieving following ASTM C 430
Fig. 4 A Compacted bed of blast furnace slag. Compacted bed of silica fume, B in the container after removing the plunger and C out
of the container
Ref. 1
Ref. 2
Ref. 3
2,750
4,030
2,950
1.865
(0.007)
22.90
1.878
(0.007)
22.51
1.890
(0.005)
23.81
Calibration
Volume (cm3)
K
50
dv10
40
dv50
dv90
30
20
10
0
1
No ultrasonicaon
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
2 min
4 min
ultrasonicaon
ultrasonicaon
Record number
B
Parcle size [m]
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
6 min
ultrasonicaon
dv10
10 sec
dv50
dv90
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
20 sec
30 sec
40 sec
Record number
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
dv10
dv50
dv90
11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
500 rpm 800 rpm 1000 rpm 1500 rpm 1700 rpm 2000 rpm 2500 rpm 3000 rpm
Record number
40
30
dv10
20
dv50
dv90
10
limits: 5%-6%
25.32
25.37
25.4
15.66
15.7
15.76
10.75
10.73
10.55
9.18
9.22
9.31
5.26
5.25
0
5.29
dv10
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
1.62
0
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
1
0
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
1
1.56
1.73
0
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
1
0
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
1
0
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
1
1.50
1.56
1.62
0
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
1
dv50
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1.73
dv90
25
20
15
10
5
1.50
the dispersion unit is too low then the results will not
be reproducible due to a low signal to noise ratio. If the
obscuration is too high then the measurement becomes
affected by multiple scattering, causing a reduction in
the measured particle size at higher obscurations. An
obscuration titration was carried out, and the measured
particle size parameters as a function of obscuration
are shown in Fig. 6D. The limits were set as indicated
in Fig. 6D (e.g. limits of 56 % mean that a fraction of
56 % of the light is lost from the main beam when the
sample is introduced), and the sample was added until
a value in between these limits is reached. Then the
particle size measurements started automatically.
Increased obscuration limits seem to increase the
1.56
1.62
0
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
1
0
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
1
0
0
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
1
1.50
0
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
1
0
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
1
0
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
1
1.73
Volume [%]
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.1
10
100
SSA (m2/kg)
dv10
dv50
dv90
R45 (%)
RI = 1.65, AI = 0.001
3.068
11.215
62.699
15.19
384
RI = 1.73, AI = 0.001
2.800
10.869
61.768
14.87
415
RI = 1.65, AI = 0.001
4.296
14.944
53.907
14.05
279
RI = 1.73, AI = 0.001
4.110
14.719
53.633
13.90
293
1.233
2.873
5.625
7.316
16.618
20.090
0.26
0.30
682
370
RI = 1.56, AI = 0.1
1.173
6.402
19.717
0.45
640
RI = 1.73, AI = 0.001
2.262
7.544
20.950
0.42
402
0.187
0.418
19.090
4.07
6,180
FA1
FA2
BFS1
RI = 1.56, AI = 0.1
RI = 1.56, AI = 0
BFS2
SF
Samples were measured
with the LD method
RI = 1.53, AI = 0.001
Series 1
dv10 (lm)
10.66
9.00
dv50 (lm)
35.00
35.06
dv90 (lm)
65.30
64.65
dvMAX (lm)
99.44
95.75
Series 2
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
100
10000
1000000
100
10000
1000000
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
100
10000
1000000
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
100
10000
1000000
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
100
10000
1000000
4 Conclusions
SCMs are widely used in the concrete and cement
industry not only because they provide economic and
environmental benefits, but also because their use
improves the performance of concrete. Specific
surface is one of the most important parameters for
the optimization of SCMs utilization in concrete.
There are several techniques that are currently used for
the determination of the particle size distribution and
specific surface area of SCMs. Most of them are
standardized methods for the physical characterization
References
1. Lothenbach B, Scrivener K, Hooton RD (2011) Supplementary cementitious materials. Cem Concr Res 41(12):
12441256
2. Snellings R, Mertens G, Elsen J (2012) Supplementary
cementitious materials. Rev Mineral Geochem 74:211278
3. Siddique R, Khan MI (2011) Supplementary cementing
materials. Springer, Berlin. ISBN 978-3-642-17865-8
4. Juenger M, Provis JL, Elsen J, Matthes W, Hooton RD,
Duchesne J, Courard L, He H, Michel F, Snellings R, Belie
ND (2012) Supplementary cementitious materials for concrete: characterization needs. MRS proceedings 1488.
doi:10.1557/opl.2012.1536
5. Arvaniti EC, Juenger MCG, Bernal SA, Duchesne J,
Courard L, Leroy S, Provis JL, Klemm A, Belie ND (2014)
Physical characterization methods for supplementary
cementitious materials. Mater Struct. doi:10.1617/s11527014-0430-4
6. EN 196-6 (2010) Methods of testing cementpart 6:
determination of fineness
7. ASTM C430-08 (2008) Fineness of hydraulic cement by the
45-lm (No. 325) Sieve
8. EN 451-2 (1995) Method of testing fly ashpart 2: determination of fineness by wet sieving
9. ASTM C204-11 (2011) Standard test methods for fineness
of hydraulic cement by air-permeability apparatus
10. ISO 13320:2009 (2009) Particle size analysislaser diffraction methods. Part I: general principles
11. ISO 9277 (2010) Determination of the specific surface area
of solids by gas adsorptionBET method