Physico-chemical properties of nano metakaolin on the characteristics of blended limestone cement

  • Abd El-Rahman RagabEmail author
Research Article


The materials used in this work were blended OPC limestone (24%), nano metakaolin. This thesis aims to study the effect of some nano materials such as nano metakaolin (NMK) on the hydration characteristics of blended cement pastes up to 90 days of hydration. Blended cements containing 0, 5 and 10 wt% nano MK, were also studied. The hydration and the physico-mechanical characteristics of cement pastes were investigated by the determination of water of consistency (W/C, %), setting times (STs), combined water (Wn), free lime (FL), penetration of chloride (PC), and compressive strength (CS). Some selected cement pastes were identified using XRD, TG and DTA techniques to show the hydration products with curing time.


Blended OPC limestone cement Clays Clay minerals Thermal Physical treatments Carbon emission Nano metakaolin Rate of hydration Permeability 



  1. 1.
    Shetty MS (2005) Concrete technology theory and practice, revised multi-colour edn. S. Chand & Company Ltd, New Delhi (University of Waterloo, Canada, 2007) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Monteiro PJM, Kirchheim AP, Chae S, Fischer P, Mac Dowell AA, Schaible E, Wenk HR (2009) Characterizing the nano and micro structure of concrete to improve its durability. Cem Concr Compos 31:577–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Habert G, Billard C, Rossi P, Chen C, Roussel N (2010) Cement production technology improvement compared to factor 4 objectives. Cem Concr Res 40(5):820–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bosoaga A, Masek O, Oakey J (2009) CO2 capture technologies for cement industry. Energy Proc 1(1):133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stefanovic GM, Vuckovic GD, Stojiljkovic MM, Trifunovic MB (2010) CO2 reduction options in cement industry-the Novi Popovac case. Therm Sci 14(3):671–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ASTM C150 (1994) -94bGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sood V, Singh LP, Diwedi A, Agarwal SK (2012) Effect of admixture on the compressive strength of composite cement mortar. Concr Res Lett 3(4):541–549Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ASTM Annual Book of Standards (2004) Vol. 04.01 cement, lime, gypsum. American Standard for Testing and Materials, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li H, Xiao H, Yuan J, Ou J (2004) Microstructure of cement mortar with nano-particles. Compos B 35:185–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shih J, Chang T, Hsiao T (2006) Effect of nanosilica on characterization of Portland cement composite. Mater Sci Eng A 424:266–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morsy MS, Aglan H (2007) Development and characterization of nanostructured-perlite-cementitious surface compounds. J Mater Sci 42(24):10196–10202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shebl SS, Allie L, Morsy MS, Aglan HA (2009) Mechanical behavior of activated nano silicate filled cement binders. J Mater Sci 44:1600–1606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kosmatka SH, Kerkhoff B, Panarese WC (2002) Design and control of concrete mixtures. Portland Cement Association, SkokieGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Amin MS, Abo-El-Enein SA, Abdel Rahman A, Alfalous K (2012) Artificial pozzolanic cement pastes containing burnt clay with and without silica fume. J Therm Anal Calorim 107:1105–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    He X, Shi X (2008) Chloride permeability and microstructure of Portland cement mortars incorporating nanomaterials. In: Transportation Research Record: J. Transp. Res. Board, No. 2070, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, pp 13–21Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morsy MS, Al-Salloum YA, Abbas H, Alsayed SH (2012) Behavior of blended cement mortars containing nano-metakaolin at elevated temperatures. Constr Build Mater 35:900–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bhuvaneshwari B, Sasmal S, Iyer NR (2011) Nanoscience to nanotechnology for civil engineering: proof of concepts. In: Conference on recent researches in geography, geology, energy, environment and biomedicineGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Abd El-Aziz M, Abd El-Aleem S, Heikal M, El-Didamony H (2005) Hydration and durability of sulphate resisting and slag cement blends in Caron’s Lake water. Cem Concr Res 35:1592–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen X, Wu S (2013) Influence of water cement ratio and curing period on ore structure of cement mortar. Constr Build Mater 38:804–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sánchez I, López MP, Ortega JM, Climent MA (2011) Impedance spectroscopy: an efficient tool to determine the non-steady-state chloride diffusion coefficient in building materials. Mater Corros 62:139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Irassar EF, González MA, Rahhal VF (2000) Sulphate resistance of type V cements with limestone filler and natural pozzolana. Cem Concr Compos 22(5):361–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shanahan N, Zayed A (2007) Cement composition and sulfate attack. Part I. Cem Concr Res 37(4):618–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Montes OB, Palacios M, Rivilla P, Puertas F (2012) Compatibility between superplasticizer admixtures and cements with mineral additions. Constr Build Mater 31:300–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Aye T, Oguchi CT (2011) |”Resistance of plain and blended cement mortars exposed to severe sulfate attacks”. Constr Build Mater 25:2988–2996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hakamy A, Shaikh FU, Low IM (2015) Characteristics of nano clay and calcined nanoclay-cement nanocomposites. Compos Part B 78:174–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sabir BB, Wild S, Bai J (2001) Metakaolin and calcined clay as pozzolans for concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 23:441–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Singh M, Garg M (2006) Reactive pozzolana from Indian clays their use in cement mortars. Cem Concr Res 36:1903–1907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Badogiannis Kakali G, Dimopoulou G, Chaniotakis E, Tsivilis S (2005) Metakaolin as supplementary cementitious materials, optimization of kaolin to metakaolin conversion. J Therm Anal Calorim 81:457–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Abo-El-Enein SA, Heikal M, Amin MS, Negm HH (2013) Reactivity of dealuminated kaolin and burnt kaolin using cement kiln dust or hydrated lime as activators. Constr Build Mater 47:1451–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morsy MS, Aglan H (2007) Development and characterization of nano-structured perlite-cementitious surface compounds. J Mater Sci 42:196–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Poon CS, Kou SC, Lam L (2006) Compressive strength, chloride diffusivity and pore structure of high performance metakaolin and silica fume concrete. Constr Build Mater 20:858–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    El-Gamal SMA, Amin MS, Ramadan M (2014) Faculty of Science, Ain Shams University, CairoGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Morsy MS, Alsayed SH, Agel M (2010) Effect of nano-clay on mechanical properties and microstructure of ordinary Portland cement mortar. Int J Civ Environ Eng 10:23–27Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rupasinghe M, San Nicolas R, Mendis P, Sofi M (2014) Analysing the pozzolanic reactivity of nano-silica in cement paste. In: Smith ST (ed) 23rd Australasian conference on the mechanics of structures and materials (ACMSM23), Byron Bay, Australia, 9–12 December 2014Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Qing Y, Zenan Z, Deyu K, Rongshen CH (2007) Influence of nano-SiO2 addition on properties of hardened cement paste as compared with silica fume. Constr Build Mater 21:539–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kar A, Ray I, Unnikrishnan A, Davalos F (2012) Microanalysis and optimization-based estimation of C–S–H contents of cementitious systems containing fly ash and silica fume. Cem Concr Compos 34:419–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Knop Y, Peled A (2016) Setting behavior of blended cement with limestone: influence of particle size and content. Mater Struct 49:439–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Falla PG, Balonis M, Le Saout G, Neithalath N, Sant G (2015) The influence of metakaolin on limestone reactivity in cementitious materials. In: Scrivener RK, Favier A (eds) Calcined clays for sustainable concrete, RILEM Book series, p 10. Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Esteves LP (2011) On the hydration of water-entrained cement-silica system combined SEM, XRD and thermal analysis in cement pastes. Thermochim Acta 518:27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chowaniec O (2012) Limestone addition in cement. Ph.D. Thesis, École Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    El-Diadamony H, Amer AA, Sokkary TM, El-Hoseny S (2015) Hydration and characteristics of metakaolin pozzolanic cement pastes. HBRC J 14:150–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Echart A, Ludwig HM, Stark J (1995) Hydration of the four main Portland cement clinker phases. Zemenk-Kalk-Gips 28(8):443–452Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stefanidou M, Papayianni I (2012) Influence of nano-SiO2 on the Portland cement pastes. Compos Part B 43(6):2706–2710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dinakar P, Sahoo PK, Sriram G (2013) Effect of metakaolin content on the properties of high strength concrete. Int J Concr Struct Mater 7(3):215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Al-Mishhadani SA, Ibrahem AM, Naji HZ (2013) The effect of nano metakaolin material on some properties of concrete. Diyala J Eng Sci 6(01):50–61Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Diab AM, Abd Elmoaty M, Aly A (2016) Long term study of mechanical properties, durability and environmental impact of limestone cement concrete. Alex Eng J 55:1465–1482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Srinivasu K, Sai K, Kumar NV (2014) A review on use of metakaolin in cement mortar and concrete. Int J Innov Res Sci Eng Technol 3(7):14697–14701Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Future High Institute of EngineeringCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations