Materials and Structures

, Volume 48, Issue 11, pp 3675–3686 | Cite as

Physical characterization methods for supplementary cementitious materials

  • Eleni C. Arvaniti
  • Maria C. G. Juenger
  • Susan A. Bernal
  • Josée Duchesne
  • Luc Courard
  • Sophie Leroy
  • John L. Provis
  • Agnieszka Klemm
  • Nele De Belie
Original Article

Abstract

The main supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) that are used today are industrial by-products. In most cases the quality of these materials cannot be controlled during their production, resulting in materials with varied characteristics. The adequate physical characterization of SCMs is important to better predict their performance and optimize their use in concretes production. There are standardized methods used to determine the particle characteristics for Portland cements that are usually adopted to characterize SCMs; however, these methods may not be as accurate when applied to SCMs. This paper is an overview of the techniques that are currently used for the determination of the density, particle size distribution, surface area and shape of SCMs. The main principles of each method are presented. The limitations that occur for the SCMs measurements are also discussed. This paper is an output from the work of the RILEM Technical Committee on Hydration and Microstructure of Concrete with Supplementary Cementitious Materials (TC-238-SCM).

Keywords

Supplementary cementitious materials Particle size measurement Laser diffraction Blaine BET Image analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Lothenbach B, Scrivener K, Hooton RD (2011) Supplementary cementitious materials. Cem Concr Res 41(3):217–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Snellings R, Mertens G, Elsen J (2012) Supplementary cementitious materials. Rev Mineral Geochem 74:211–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Siddique R, Khan MI (2011) Supplementary cementing materials. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Celik IB (2009) The effects of particle size distribution and surface area upon cement strength development. Powder Technol 188(3):272–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scrivener KL, Kirkpatrick RJ (2008) Innovation in use and research on cementitious material. Cem Concr Res 38(2):128–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stark U, Mueller A (3003) Particle size distribution of cements and mineral admixtures—standard and sophisticated measurements. In: Owens DGGaG (ed) 11th International Congress on the Chemistry of Cement (ICCC), Durban, 11–16 May 2003Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Naito M, Hayakawa O, Nakahira K, Mori H, Tsubaki J (1998) Effect of particle shape on the particle size distribution measured with commercial equipment. Powder Technol 100:52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 1488Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hewlett P (2003) Lea’s chemistry of cement and concrete, 4th edn. Butterworth Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Allen T (1997) Particle size measurement, vol 1, 5th edn. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Allen T (2003) Powder sampling and particle size determination, 1st edn. Elsevier B.V, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO 14488:2007 (2007) Particulate materials—sampling and sample splitting for the determination of particulate propertiesGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ASTM C 183—08 (2008) Standard practice for sampling and the amount of testing of hydraulic cementGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ASTM C311/C311M—13 (2013) Standard test methods for sampling and testing fly ash or natural pozzolans for use in portland-cement concreteGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Green DW (1997) Perry’s chemical engineers’ handbook, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Takeo Mitsui BS, Susumu Takada BS (1969) On Factors influencing dispersibility and wettability of powder in water. J Soc Cosmetic Chemists 20:335–351Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ferraris CF, Hackley VA, Aviles AI, Charles E. Buchanan J (2002) Analysis of the ASTM Round-Robin test on particle size distribution of portland cement: phase I. NISTIR 6883Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clausen L, Fabricius I (2000) BET Measurements: outgassing of minerals. J Colloid Interface Sci 227(1):7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pierotti R, Rouquerol J (1985) Reporting physisorption data for gas/solid systems with special reference to the determination of surface area and porosity. Pure Appl Chem 57(4):603–619Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ACI 211.1-91 (2009) Standard practice for selecting proportions for normal, heavyweight and mass concreteGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ASTM C188-09 (2009) Standard test method for density of hydraulic cementGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    ASTM C311/C311M—13 (2013) Standard test methods for sampling and testing fly ash or natural pozzolans for use in portland-cement concreteGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    ASTM C604-02R12 (2012) Standard test method for true specific gravity of refractory materials by gas-comparison pycnometerGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    ASTM C618-12a (2012) Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use in concreteGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    ASTM C430-08 (2008) Fineness of hydraulic cement by the 45-μm (No. 325) SieveGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    EN 196-6 (2010) Methods of testing cement—Part 6: determination of finenessGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hooton RD, Buckingham JHP (1985) The use and standardization of rapid test methods for measuring the carbon content and fineness of fly ash pozzolan. In: 7th international ash utilization symposium, Orlando, FL, 4–7 March. Proceedings of the 7th International Ash Utilization SymposiumGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    BS 4550:1978 (1978) Methods of testing cementsGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Niesel K (1973) Determination of the specific surface by measurement of permeability. Mater Struct 6(3):227–231Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schulz NF (1974) Measurement of surface areas by permeametry. Int J Miner Process 1(1):65–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    ASTM C204-11 (2011) Standard test methods for fineness of hydraulic cement by air-permeability apparatusGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Potgieter JH, Strydom CA (1996) An investigation into the correlation between different surface area determination techniques applied to various limestone-related compounds. Cem Concr Res 26(11):1613–1617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kiattikomol K, Jaturapitakkul C, Songpiriyakij S, Chutubtim S (2001) A study of ground coarse fly ashes with different finenesses from various sources as pozzolanic materials. Cem Concr Compos 23(4–5):335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Frías M, Sánchez de Rojas MI, Luxán Md, García N (1991) Determination of specific surface area by the laser diffraction technique. Comparison with the Blaine permeability method. Cem Concr Res 21(5):709–717Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    ISO 13320:2009 (2009) Particle size analysis—laser diffraction methods. Part I: general principlesGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ferraris CF, Hackley VA, Aviles AI (2004) Measurement of particle size distribution in Portland cement powder: Analysis of ASTM round robin studies. J Cem Concr Aggreg 26(2):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wriedt T (1998) A review of elastic light scattering theories. Part Part Syst Charact 15:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wahlstrom EE (1979) Optical Crystallography, 5th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mitra S (1996) Fundamentals of optical, spectroscopic and X-Ray mineralogy. New Age International, New Delhi, p 336Google Scholar
  40. 40.
  41. 41.
    Fujiwara H (2007) Spectroscopic ellipsometry principles and applications. Wiley, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hackley VA, Lum LS, Gintautas V, Ferraris CF (2004) Particle size analysis by laser diffraction spectrometry: application to cementitious powders. Report from the US Department of Commerce. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), NISTIR 7097Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhang HJ, Xu GD (1992) The effect of particle refractive index on size measurement. Powder Technol 70:189–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ferraris CF, Bullard JW, Hackley V (2006) Particle size distribution by laser diffraction spectrometry: application to cementitious powders. In: Proceedings of the 5th world congress on particle technology, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Taylor HFW (ed) (1997) Cement chemistry. 2nd edn. Telford, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
  47. 47.
    Mykhaylo P, Gorsky PPM, Maksimyak AP (2010) Optical correlation technique for cement particle size measurements. Optica Applicata XL 40(2):459Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gupta RP, Wall TF (1985) The optical properties of fly ash in coal fired furnaces. Combust Flame 61:145–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Goodwin DG, Mitchner M (1989) Flyash radiative properties and effects on radiative heat transfer in coal-fired systems. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 32(4):627–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Liu F, Swithenbank J (1993) The effects of particle size distribution and refractive index on fly-ash radiative properties using a simplified approach. Int J Heat Mass Transf 36(7):1905–1912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gupta RP, Wall TF (1981) The complex refractive index of particles. J Phys D Appl Phys 14:95–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cyr M, Tagnit-Hamou A (2001) Particle size distribution of fine powders by LASER diffraction spectrometry. Case of cementitious materials. Mater Struct 34(6):342–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Jewell RB, Rathbone RF (2009) Optical properties of coal combustion byproducts for particle-size analysis by laser diffraction. Combustion and Gasification Products 1:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Medalia A (1970) Dynamic shape factors of particles. Powder Technol 4:117–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Leroy S, Dislaire G, Bastin D, Pirard E (2011) Optical analysis of particle size and chromite liberation from pulp samples of a UG2 ore regrinding circuit. Miner Eng 24:1340–1347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gregoire M, Dislaire G, Pirard E (2007) Accuracy of size distributions obtained from single particle static digital image analysis. Partec, NurnbergGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hart JR, Zhu Y, Pirard E (2009) Advances in the characterization of industrial minerals. Ch 4: Particle size and shape characterization: current technology and practiceGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    León CA (1998) New perspectives in mercury porosimetry. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 76–77:341–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Glass HJ, With G (1996) Reliability and reproducability of mercury intrusion porosimetry. J Eur Ceram Soc 17:753–757Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Giesche H (2006) Mercury porosimetry: a general (practical) overview. Part Part Syst Charact 23:9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Huggett S, Mathews P, Matthews T (1999) Estimating particle size distributions from a network model of porous media. Powder Technol 104:169–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Lucarelli L (2013) The use of mercury intrusion porosimetry for the determination of particle size distribution on nano-particles carbon black. http://s3.ceelantech.com/docs/MercuryIntrusionPorosimetry.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2013
  63. 63.
    Mayer RP, Stowe RA (1965) J Colloid Sci 20:893–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mayer RP, Stowe RA (2005) Packed uniform sphere model for solids: interstitial access opening sizes and pressure deficiencies for wetting liquids with comparison to reported experimental results. J Colloid Interface Sci 294:139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Webb PA (2001) An introduction to the physical characterization of materials by mercury intrusion porosimetry with emphasis on reduction and presentation of experimental data. Micromeritics Instrument Corporation, NorcrossGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Drake LC, Ritter HL (1945) Pressure porosimeter and determination of complete macropore-size distributions. Ind Eng Chem Anal Ed 17:782–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eleni C. Arvaniti
    • 1
  • Maria C. G. Juenger
    • 2
  • Susan A. Bernal
    • 3
  • Josée Duchesne
    • 4
  • Luc Courard
    • 5
  • Sophie Leroy
    • 5
  • John L. Provis
    • 3
  • Agnieszka Klemm
    • 6
  • Nele De Belie
    • 1
  1. 1.Magnel Laboratory for Concrete Research, Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and ArchitectureGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  3. 3.Department of Materials Science and EngineeringUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  4. 4.Département de géologie et de génie géologiqueUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
  5. 5.GeMMe Research Group, ArGEnCo DepartmentUniversity of LiegeLiegeBelgium
  6. 6.Department of Construction and Surveying/School of Engineering and Built EnvironmentGlasgow Caledonian UniversityGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations