Materials and Structures

, 51:33 | Cite as

Admixture compatibility in metakaolin–portland-limestone cement blends

  • Behnaz H. Zaribaf
  • Kimberly E. Kurtis
Original Article


Despite potential benefits including enhanced mechanical properties, reduced permeability, and decreased environmental impact, higher rates of metakaolin substitution for cement (> 10% MK by mass of cement) have been limited practically because of lower workability in such mixtures. When metakaolin is combined with portland-limestone cement (PLC), potential synergies further enhance hardened concrete performance and decrease environmental impact, but the greater surface area of PLCs suggests even greater challenges for workability in such blends. This study evaluates four water-reducing admixture chemistries-polycarboxylate ether (PCE), calcium lignosulfonate (LS), naphthalene formaldehyde condensate (PNS) and polymelamine sulfonate (PMS)—to assess their effectiveness in metakaolin-PLC combinations at up to 30% MK. At that upper bound, only PCE and PMS impart adequate workability within their recommended dosage limits. While PMS delays tricalcium silicate hydration and LS shows significant incompatibilities at higher MK contents, PCE has the least effect on hydration and can be used at a consistent dosage rate up to 30% MK.


Admixture Metakaolin Blended cement Hydration Microstructure Workability 



This material is based upon work supported by Burgess Pigment Company and Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) under Project No. GDOT 02-127.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Huntzinger DN, Eatmon TD (2009) A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement manufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies. J Clean Prod 17(7):668–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cassagnabère F, Escadeillas G, Mouret M (2009) Study of the reactivity of cement/metakaolin binders at early age for specific use in steam cured precast concrete. Constr Build Mater 23(2):775–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antoni M et al (2012) Cement substitution by a combination of metakaolin and limestone. Cem Concr Res 42(12):1579–1589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ramezanianpour AA, Bahrami H (2012) Jovein, Influence of metakaolin as supplementary cementing material on strength and durability of concretes. Constr Build Mater 30:470–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rojas MFA, Cabrera J (2002) The effect of temperature on the hydration rate and stability of the hydration phases of metakaolin–lime–water systems. Cem Concr Res 32(1):133–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wild S, Khatib JM (1997) Portlandite consumption in metakaolin cement pastes and mortars. Cem Concr Res 27(1):137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ASTM C595 (2014) Standard specification for blended hydraulic cements. ASTM international, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    En B (2000) 197-1 (2000) Cement: composition, specifications and conformity criteria for common cements. British Standards Institution, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bushi L, Meil J (2014) An environmental life cycle assessment of portland limestone and ordinary portland cements in concrete. Cement Association of Canada, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heikal M, El-Didamony H, Morsy MS (2000) Limestone-filled pozzolanic cement. Cem Concr Res 30(11):1827–1834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tsivilis S et al (1999) A study on the parameters affecting the properties of portland limestone cements. Cement Concr Compos 21(2):107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feldman R, Ramachandran VS, Sereda PJ (1965) Influence of CaCO3 on the Hydration of 3CaO·Al2O3. J Am Ceram Soc 48(1):25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Matschei T, Lothenbach B, Glasser FP (2007) The role of calcium carbonate in cement hydration. Cem Concr Res 37(4):551–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zaribaf BH, Uzal B, Kurtis K (2015) Compatibility of Superplasticizers with Limestone–Metakaolin blended cementitious system. In: Scrivener K, Favier A (eds) Calcined clays for sustainable concrete. Springer, Berlin, pp 427–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ASTM C494 (2015) Standard specification for chemical admixtures for concrete. West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Erdoǧdu Ş (2000) Compatibility of superplasticizers with cements different in composition. Cem Concr Res 30(5):767–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Perenchio W, Whiting D, Kantro D (1979) Water reduction, slump loss, and entrained air-void systems as influenced by superplasticizers. Special Publication 62:137–156Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nadelman E (2016) Hydration and microstructural development of portland limestone cement-based materials. In: Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kantro D (1982) Influence of water-reducing admixtures on properties of cement paste: a miniature slump test. Portland Cement Association, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ASTM C143 (2015) Standard test method for slump of hydraulic-cement concrete. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ASTM C1679–14 (2014) Standard practice for measuring hydration kinetics of hydraulic cementitious mixtures using isothermal calorimetry. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    ASTM C1679 (2014) Standard practice for measuring hydration kinetics of hydraulic cementitious mixtures using isothermal calorimetry. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang J, Scherer GW (2011) Comparison of methods for arresting hydration of cement. Cem Concr Res 41(10):1024–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scrivener K, Snellings R, Lothenbach B (2016) A practical guide to microstructural analysis of cementitious materials. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roberts LR, Sandberg PJ (2005) Cement-admixture interactions related to aluminate control. J ASTM Int 2(6):1–14Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Collepardi M (1998) Admixtures used to enhance placing characteristics of concrete. Cement Concr Compos 20(2):103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chandra S, Flodin P (1987) Interactions of polymers and organic admixtures on portland cement hydration. Cem Concr Res 17(6):875–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Danner T et al (2015) Phase changes during the early hydration of Portland cement with Ca-lignosulfonates. Cem Concr Res 69:50–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Payá J et al (2003) Evaluation of the pozzolanic activity of fluid catalytic cracking catalyst residue (FC3R). Thermogravimetric analysis studies on FC3R-portland cement pastes. Cem Concr Res 33(4):603–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Alarcon-Ruiz L et al (2005) The use of thermal analysis in assessing the effect of temperature on a cement paste. Cem Concr Res 35(3):609–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    McCarthy GJ, Hassett DJ, Bender JA (1991) Synthesis, crystal chemistry and stability of ettringite, a material with potential applications in hazardous waste immobilization. In: MRS proceedings. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Damidot D, Glasser FP (1995) Investigation of the CaO-Al2O3-SiO2-H2O system at 25 C by thermodynamic calculations. Cem Concr Res 25(1):22–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    St Stöber S, Pöllmann H (1998) Crystalchemistry of organic sulfonates used as cement additives. In: Delhez R, Mittemeijer EJ (eds) Materials science forum. Trans Tech Publications, ZürichGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rojas MF et al (2003) The effect of high curing temperature on the reaction kinetics in MK/lime and MK-blended cement matrices at 60 C. Cem Concr Res 33(5):643–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Young J (1962) Hydration of tricalcium aluminate with lignosulphonate additives. Mag Concr Res 14(42):137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rojas MF, Sánchez de Rojas MI (2005) Influence of metastable hydrated phases on the pore size distribution and degree of hydration of MK-blended cements cured at 60 C. Cem Concr Res 35(7):1292–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wild S, Khatib JM, Jones A (1996) Relative strength, pozzolanic activity and cement hydration in superplasticised metakaolin concrete. Cem Concr Res 26(10):1537–1544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ramachandran VS (1996) Concrete admixtures handbook: properties, science and technology. William Andrew, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bishop M, Barron AR (2006) Cement hydration inhibition with sucrose, tartaric acid, and lignosulfonate: analytical and spectroscopic study. Ind Eng Chem Res 45(21):7042–7049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sakai E et al (1980) Influence of sodium aromatic sulfonates on the hydration of tricalcium aluminate with or without gypsym. Cem Concr Res 10(3):311–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gu P et al (1994) Investigation of the retarding effect of superplasticizers on cement hydration by impedance spectroscopy and other methods. Cem Concr Res 24(3):433–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Singh NB, Sarvahi R, Singh NP (1992) Effect of superplasticizers on the hydration of cement. Cem Concr Res 22(5):725–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sakai E et al (2006) Influence of superplasticizers on the hydration of cement and the pore structure of hardened cement. Cem Concr Res 36(11):2049–2053CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations