Stern (1976) also found evidence of an acceleration effect due to the increased number of ...... Soroka, Itzhak, and Stern, Nava, âEffect of Calcareous Fillers on.
Ain Shams University Faculty of Engineering Structural Engineering Department
LONG TERM PERFORMANCE OF PORTLAND LIMESTONE CEMENT CONCRETE By
Jehan Mahmoud Ali Elsamni B.Sc. 1998 Civil Engineering Department Ain Shams University Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of therequirements of the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Civil Engineering Supervised by Prof .Dr . Salah A. Abo-El- Enein (D.Sc) Professor of Physical Chemistry and Building Materials Faculty of Science, Ain Shams University
Dr . Ahmed Fathy Abdel-Aziz Dr . Hany Mohamed Elshafie Associate Professor Associate Professor Structural Engineering Department, Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University Ain Shams University
Cairo – 2011
CBA
Æ ÅÄ Ã Â Á À ¿ ¾ m Ð Ï Î Í Ì ËÊ É È Ç ÙØ×ÖÕÔ ÓÒÑ l ßÞ ÝÜÛÚ ٥٩ اﻵﻳﺔ- ﺳورة اﻷﻧﻌـ ـ ــﺎم
STATEMENT This thesis is submitted to Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering.
The work included in this thesis was carried out by the author at properties and testing of Materials lab of the faculty of engineering, Ain Shams University.
No part of this thesis has been submitted for a degree or qualification at any other university or institute.
Date
:
/
/ 2011
Name
:
Jehan Mahmoud Ali Elsamni
Signature
:
Jehan Elsamni
To my father, You are always remembered and greatly missed
ACKNOWLEDGMENT All praise be to Allah Subhanahu wa ta’ala for bestowing me with health, opportunity, patience, and knowledge to complete this research. May the peace and blessings of Allah Subhanahu wa ta’aala be upon Prophet Mohammed (Sala allahu alaihi wa sallam). I would like to thank my parents, brothers and sister for their constant prayers, guidance, encouragement and support throughout my career. They are the source of power, inspiration, and confidence in me. Acknowledgement is due to Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University for the support given to this research through its facilities and for granting me the opportunity to pursue my graduate studies. I acknowledge, with deep gratitude and appreciation, the inspiration, encouragement, and continuous support given to me by Dr. Ahmed Fathy Abdel-Aziz working with him was an opportunity of great learning and experience. Thereafter, I am deeply indebted and grateful to Dr. Hany Mohamed Elshafie for his extensive guidance, continuous support, and personal involvement in all phases of this research. I am also grateful to Prof. Dr. Salah A. Abo-El-Enein for his guidance, technical support and suggestions during the research. Thanks are due to the personnel of properties and testing of material laboratory, faculty of engineering, Ain Shams university, especially Mr. Nabeel Mostafa, Mr. Emad Elsayed, Mr. Shreef Elsayed for their substantial assistance in the experimental work.
Ain Shams University Faculty of Engineering Structural Engineering Department
Abstract of M.Sc. Thesis submitted by: Jehan Mahmoud Ali Elsamni Title: “LONG TERM PERFORMANCE OF PORTLAND LIMESTONE CEMENT CONCRETE “ Supervisors:
1. Prof .Dr . Salah A. Abo-El- Enein 2. Dr . Ahmed Fathy Abdel-Aziz 3. Dr . Hany Mohamed Elshafie
ABSTRACT New edition of the Egyptian Standard Specifications 47561/2005, for different types of cement has been issued recently following the European Specification EN 197-1/2004 for common cements. These specifications contain different categories of cements including Portland blended cements (Designated by CEM II) which compose mainly of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) with a percentage varies from 65 to 94 % and pozzolanic materials or inert fillers with a percentage varies from 6 to 35%. One of the popular types of the Portland blended cement is Portland Limestone Cement (PLC) where Ordinary Portland Cement is
blended with finely grounded limestone which is considered as chemically inert filler. Blending of limestone powder with OPC has beneficial effect on reducing the amount of energy needed for manufacturing the cement and consequently reducing the cement cost and producing more environmental friendly cement. The limestone powder is inert and does not add to the cement strength, however, owing to its physical properties, it has some advantages on the concrete properties including workability, capillarity, bleeding, and cracking tendency. Compared to OPC concrete, the PLC concrete may have comparable short term strength, but its strength development with time under different exposure conditions and long term performance need to be addressed.
Based on the new specifications, many of the local cement manufacturers have been producing PLC. Properties of these types of cement depend on the manufacturing method and composition of limestone which changes from one location to another. As a new type of cement in the local market, it has not to be used in producing concrete before evaluating the long term performance of the concrete. Therefore, this research has been initiated to study the long term performance and high temperature resistance of the concrete produced by Portland limestone cement. The main variables to be covered in the current study include cement and limestone contents and exposure conditions. The long term characteristics of the concrete to be considered are strength development under different exposure conditions, resistance to sulfate attack and reinforcing steel corrosion, and high temperature resistance.
From the analysis and discussion of the test results obtained in the current research, it is concluded that for the same cement content and water/cement ratio the compressive strength for PLC concrete is less than that of OPC concrete and the reduction in compressive strength is proportional to the limestone content. However, to attain comparable compressive strength with OPC concrete, PLC concrete should contain higher cement content and lower water/cement ratio. It is concluded that if the compressive strengths of both PLC and OPC concretes are comparable, PLC concrete is as good as OPC in both short and long term characteristics. On the other hand, compared to OPC concrete, PLC concrete has lower drying shrinkage and comparable high temperature resistance. Therefore, it is concluded that PLC can be used in producing plain and reinforced concrete provided that the cement content and water/ cement ratio are modified to achieve the specified compressive strength.
Keywords : Compressive Strength, Corrosion Resistance, Drying Shrinkage, Pozzolanic materials, Durability, Long Term Performance, Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), Portland Limestone Cement (PLC), Sulfate Attack and Fire Resistance.
TABLE OF CONTACTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background……………………………………… 1.2 Organization of the present work………………… CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Introduction……………………………………… 2.2 History of using limestone with Portland cement all over the world…………………………………….. 2.3 Hydration and Setting…………………………… 2.3.1 Chemistry………………………………… 2.3.2 Analysis of composition………………… 2.3.3 Heat evolution …………………………… 2.3.4 Microstructure………………………..…… 2.3.5 Setting time…………………………..…… 2.4 Fresh mortar and concrete………………..……… 2.4.1 Particle Size Distribution………………..… 2.4.1.1 Comminution…………………..… 2.4.1.2 Workability of paste, mortar, and concrete………………………………... 2.5 Hardened Mortar and Concrete…………………… 2.5.1 Mechanical properties…………………… 2.5.1.1Strength and Strength Development 2.5.1.2 Volume Stability………………… 2.5.2 Durability………………………………… 2.5.2.1 Permeability……………………… 2.5.2.2 Carbonation……………………… 2.5.2.3 Freeze/Thaw and Deicer Scaling… 2.5.2.4 Sulfate Resistance……………… 2.5.2.5. Thaumasite ……………………
i
Page 1 1 2 3 3 3 10 10 13 21 22 23 26 26 26 30 35 35 35 50 54 54 58 64 69 80
2.5.2.6 Chlorides………………………… 2.5.2.7Alkali-Silica Reactivity…………... 2.5.2.8 Corrosion………………………… 2.5.3 Interactions with mineral and chemical admixtures ............................................................. 2.6 Specifying and Monitoring Quality………………. 2.6.1 Limestone………………………………… 2.6.2 Cement with limestone…………………… 2.6.3 Concrete…………………………………… 2.7 Needed Research…………………………………
Page 85 88 89 92 94 94 9 101 102
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH PROGRAM 3.1 Introduction……………………………………….. 3.2 Scope ……………………………………………. 3.3 Objectives……………………………………….... 3.4 Variables considered…………………………… 3.5. Mix proportions………………………………… 3.6 Properties considered……………………………
103 103 103 104 104 104
CHAPTER 4: MATERIALS USED AND TESTING PROCEDURES 4.1 Introduction……………………………………… 4.2 Properties of Materials Used…………………… 4.2.1 Fine Aggregate…………………………… 4.2.2 Coarse Aggregate………………………… 4.2.3 Cementitious Material…………………… 4.2.3.1 Cement………………………… 4.2.3.2 Fly Ash………………………… 4.2.3.3 Silica Fume …………………… 4.2.4 Admixtures………………………………. 4.2.4.1 High Range Water Reducer ……
108 108 108 109 109 109 113 113 113 113
ii
4.2.5 Reinforcing Steel bars…………………….. 4.2.6 Materials used to prevent steel bars from corrosion………………………………….…… 4.2.6.1 Epoxy zinc coat………………… 4.3 Testing procedures………………..……………… 4.3.1 Compressive strength test ……………….. 4.3.2 Accelerated corrosion test. .……………… 4.3.3Sulfate resistance………………………… 4.3.3.1 Sulfate resistance of concrete exposed to sulfate solution…………… 4.3.3.2 Potential Expansion of cement mortar exposed to sulfate……………… 4.3.4 High temperature resistance……………… CHAPTER 5: TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 5.1 Introduction………………………………………. 5.2 Compressive Strength and strength gaining……… 5.2.1 Effect of limestone content on strength and strength gaining………………………………… 5.3 Accelerated Corrosion test ……………………… 5.3.1 Corrosion Current………………………… 5.3.2 Mass Loss ………………………………… 5.3.3 Crack patterns…………………………… 5.3.4 Effect of limestone content on corrosion resistance............................................................... 5.4 Sulfate resistance…………………………………. 5.4.1 Sulfate resistance of concrete cubes ……… 5.4.1.1 Limestone content effect on Sulfate resistance of concrete cubes …… 5.4.2 Sulfate resistance of cement mortar exposed to sulfate (Potential Expansion) ……….
iii
Page 114 114 114 114 114 114 117 117 117 118
119 119 121 126 126 127 129 129 133 133 137 137
Page 5.4.2.1 Effect of Limestone content on Sulfate resistance of cement mortar exposed to sulfate (Potential Expansion) 5.5 High temperature resistance……………………… 5.5.1 Influence of limestone content on high temperature resistance ……………………… 5.6 The effect of cement and limestone contents on the compressive strength of concrete mixes…………….... CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Summary………………………………………… 6.2 Conclusions……………………………………… 6.2.1Conclusions regarding compressive strength 6.2.2Conclusions regarding corrosion resistance.. 6.2.3 Conclusions regarding sulfate resistance for concrete cubes and linear expansion of mortars.... 6.2.4 Conclusions regarding heat resistance.......... REFERENCES …………….…………..…………………… APPENDICES Appendix A....………………………………………… Appendix B....………………………………………… Appendix C....…………………………………………
iv
138 139 142 144
152 153 154 155 157 157 158 173 176 178
LIST OF FIGURES Page CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Portland limestone cement market share in Germany………………………………………………. 2.2 Pozzolanic cement market share in Italy……………………………………………………. 2.3 XRD patterns of PEC pastes (1: ettringite, 2: calcium monosulfate hydrate, 3: Portlandite (C–H), 4: gismondine2 (CaAl2Si2O8.4H2O), 5: quartz, 6: anhydrous compounds of clinker)…………………… 2.4 XRD patterns of PLC pastes (1: ettringite, 2: monocarboaluminate hydrate, 3: Ca–Al–Si hydrate)… 2.5 XRD patterns of composite cement pastes at 7 days (1:ettringite, 2: calcium monosulfate hydrate, 3: monocarboaluminatehydrate, 4: Ca–Al–Si hydrate)….. 2.6 Cumulative mass distributions of a Portland limestone cement with a limestone content of 12% by mass, as well as of the two individual constituent materials after intergrinding in an industrial ball mill (after Schiller and Ellerbrock, 1992)…………………………………. 2.7 Effect of heat curing on the compressive strength of concretes made with and without limestone. “Test A” contains 4.1% limestone and “Test B” contains 2.3% limestone (after Bédard and Bergeron, 1990)………… 2.8 Strength development of cements……………………..
v
8 9
19 20
20
28
38 41
Page 2.9
The ratio of compressive strengths for mortars made with Portland cements with up to 6% limestone to that of companion samples made with Portland cement without added limestone. The dashed line connects the mean values at each age. The data represent 374 sets of samples from 11 sources (Bobrowski et al. 1977; Bayles 1985; Crawford 1980; Combe and Beaudoin, 1979; Hawkins 1986; Hooton 1990; Klieger 1985; Livesey 1993; Lane 1985; Matkovic et al. 1981; and Tsivilis et al. 1999)…………………………………… 2.10 The ratio of compressive strengths for concrete made with Portland cement with limestone to that of companion samples made with Portland cement without limestone. The dashed line connects the mean values at each age. The data represent 491 sets of samples from 10 sources (Bayles 1985; Bedard and Bergeron, 1990; Bobrowski et al. 1977; Detwiler 1996; Hawkins 1986; Klieger 1985; Livesey 1993; Matkovic et al. 1981; Nehdi et al. 1996; and Suderman 1985)…………………………………………………... 2.11 The ratio of compressive strengths for mortars made with Portland cement with limestone to that of companion samples made with Portland cement without limestone. The dashed line connects the mean values at each age. The data represent 44 sets of samples from 4 sources with cement C3A contents less than 8% (Bobrowski et al. 1977, Hawkins 1986, Livesey 1993, and Tsivilis et al. 1999)………………
vi
44
46
47
Page 2.12 The ratio of compressive strengths for concretes made with Portland cement with limestone to that of companion samples made with Portland cement without limestone. The dashed line connects the mean values at each age. The data represent 72 sets of samples from 5 sources with cement C3A contents less than 8% (Bobrowski et al. 1977, Hawkins 1986, Livesey 1993, Nehdi et al. 1996, and Suderman 1985)…………………………………………………... 2.13 The ratio of flexural strengths for mortars made with Portland cement with limestone to that of companion samples made with Portland cement without limestone. The dashed line connects the mean values at each age. The data represent 59 sets of samples from 3 sources (Combe and Baudouin, 1979; Livesey 1993; and Matkovic et al.1981)…………………………………... 2.14 The ratio of flexural strengths for concrete made with Portland cement with limestone to that of companion samples made with Portland cement without limestone. The dashed line connects the mean values at each age. The data represent 15 sets of samples from 1 source (Matkovic et al. 1981)………………………………… 2.15 Permeability coefficient of concretes made with Portland cement (PZ) and Portland limestone cement (PKZ) containing 13 to 17% limestone and subjected to different curing regimes……………………………
vii
48
49
50
56
Page 2.16 Carbonation of concretes made from different cements and exposed to 20°C, 65% R.H. for three years. Water: cement ratios were between 0.60 and 0.65 and the cement content was between 280 and 300 kg/m3. Limestone content of PKZ 35 was 13% to 17% (adapted from Schmidt et al. 1993)…………………… 2.17 Specimen's shape and dimensions (corrosion tests)….. 2.18 Effect of type of limestone on frost resistance of concrete. Portland limestone cements of class 32.5 were produced from the same clinker, but with different types of limestone in amounts of 13% to 17%. In most cases the frost resistance is comparable to that of the Portland cement (after Schmidt et al. 1993)………………………………………………… 2.19 Results of “cube” tests for the frost resistance of concrete. Mass loss of less than 10% is considered acceptable. Here the Portland limestone cements, PKZ 35 F (with limestone contents of 13% to 17%), performed better than the companion Portland cements, PZ 35 F (adapted from Schmidt et al. 1993)………………………………………………...... 2.20 Expansion in test method ASTM C 1012 (after Taylor 2001a) for Type II cements with two levels of two different limestones…………………………………… 2.21 Expansion in test methods ASTM C 452 (after Taylor 2001a) for Type II cements with two levels of two different limestones………………………………….... 2.22 Expansion in test method ASTM C 1012 test for cements with C3A contents of 5% or less. Cements A3 and B3 were interground with 3% limestone (after Taylor 2001b)…………………………………………
viii
59 63
67
68
75
75
76
Page 2.23 Expansion in test method ASTM C 452 for cements with C3A contents of 5% or less. Cements A3 and B3 were interground with 3% limestone (after Taylor 2001b)…………………………………………………. 2.24 Comparison of reduction in compressive strength in the mortar specimens exposed to varying concentrations of sodium solution for 24 months………………………………………………… 2.25 Specimens cured for 11 months in a 1.8% MgSO4 solution, at 5 oC……………………………………….. 2.26 Specimens cured for 11 months in a 1.8% MgSO4 solution, at 25 oC………………………………………. 2.27 Effect of curing temperature on the compressive strength of the specimens…………………………….. 2.28 Corrosion potential vs. exposure time and limestone content…………………………………………………. 2.29 The effect of the limestone content on the mass loss of rebars………………………………………………….. 2.30 Required water: cement ratio to achieve a slump of 60 to 70 mm in concretes made with different cements. Cement E contained a limestone not conforming to the EN 197-1 criteria. Comparison of the water: cement ratios for 0% and 5% limestone contents shows that the poor quality limestone did not affect the water demand for the 5% limestone cement, but had a deleterious effect on the water demand when the limestone content exceeded 16% (after Brookbanks 1993)……………… CHAPTER 4: MATERIALS USED AND TESTING PROCEDURES 4.1 Schematic figure of Lollipop Specimen……………… 4.2 Schematic figure of the Accelerated Corrosion Cell… ix
76
79 84 84 85 91 91
97
115 116
4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6
Accelerated corrosion Cell…………………………… Mould of expansion specimen………………………. Expansion specimen apparatus……………………….. High temperature oven……………………………….
CHAPTER 5: TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 5.1 Compressive strength of the various concrete mixtures up to curing ages of 540 days……………………….. 5.2 Compressive strength for concrete mixtures made of cements containing 0, 15% and 25% limestone with cement content (Cc) 300, 350 and 400 kg/m3, respectively, at 3days………………………………... 5.3 Compressive strength for concrete mixtures made of cements containing 0, 15% and 25% limestone with cement content (Cc) 300, 350 and 400 kg/m3, respectively, at 7 days……………………………….. 5.4 Compressive strength for concrete mixtures made of cements containing 0, 15% and 25% limestone with cement content (Cc) 300, 350 and 400 kg/m3, respectively, at 28 days………………………………. 5.5 Compressive strength for concrete mixtures made of cements containing 0, 15% and 25% limestone with cement content (Cc) 300, 350 and 400 kg/m3, respectively, at 56 days…………………………….. 5.6 Compressive strength for concrete mixtures made of cements containing 0, 15% and 25% limestone with cement content (Cc) 300, 350 and 400 kg/m3, respectively, at 91 days……………………………….
x
Page 117 118 118 118
120
122
122
123
123
124
Page 5.7
5.8
5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19
Compressive strength for concrete mixtures made of cements containing 0, 15% and 25% limestone with cement content (Cc) 300, 350 and 400 kg/m3, respectively, at 365 days…………………………… Compressive strength for concrete mixtures made of cements containing 0, 15% and 25% limestone with cement content (Cc) 300, 350 and 400 kg/m3, respectively, at 540 days……………………………... Corrosion time for different concrete mixes………….. The mass loss for rebar in concrete specimens…….. Typical crack pattern………………………………… Corrosion time and compressive strength of concrete made of PLC vs. limestone content for mixes………. Corrosion potential vs. time for mixtures having compressive strength 20-25 MPa……………………... Mass loss of rebars for mixes having compressive strength 20-25 MPa…………………………………. Reduction in compressive strength of concrete specimens exposed to sulfate solution for 12 months Weight loss of concrete specimens exposed to sulfate solution for 12 months……………………………… Concrete specimen C 11 exposed to 5% sulfate solution for 12 months………………………………. Linear expansion percentage of mortar prisms for different types of cement……………………………. The reduction in compressive strength after exposure of concrete specimens to thermal treatment at 400 and 600°C for 3 hours and tested after 0 hours in room temperature……………………………………..
xi
124
125 126 128 129 129 121 132 136 136 137 138
141
Page 5.20
5.21
5.22
5.23
5.24
5.25
5.26
5.27
5.28
The reduction in compressive strength after exposure of concrete specimens to thermal treatment at 400 and 600°C for 3 hours and tested after 24 hours in room temperature…………………………………... The reduction in compressive strength of concrete specimens after thermal treatment at 400o C and testing after 0 hours…………………………………………… The reduction in compressive strength of concrete specimens after thermal treatment at 400o C and testing after 24 hours………………………………………….. The reduction in compressive strength of concrete specimens after thermal treatment at 600o C and testing after 0 hours…………………………………. ……….. The reduction in compressive strength of concrete specimens after thermal treatment at 400o C and testing after 24 hours………………………………………….. The relation between compressive strength of concrete and Water/Cement ratio for the concrete specimens made from different types after 7days of curing……. The relation between compressive strength of concrete and Water/Cement ratio for the concrete specimens made from different types after 28days of curing……. The relation between compressive strength of concrete and cement content for the concrete specimens made from different types after 7 days of curing………… The relation between compressive strength of concrete and cement content for the concrete specimens made from different types after 28 days of curing…………
xii
141
142
143
143
144
147
148
149
150
Page CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 6.1 Reduction in compressive strength for PLC concrete as percentage of OPC concrete (cement content 300, 350, 400 kg/m3)………………………………………
xiii
155
LIST OF TABLES Page CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 EN 197-1 permitted compositions of four Portland limestone cements…………………………………….. 2.2 CEM II market share of EU member countries……………………………………………… 2.3 Typical Limestone Compositions and Apparent Bogue Compositions………………………………………… 2.4 Effect of Limestone1 on Average2 Type II and Type IV Cements’ Bogue……………………………………… 2.5 Average characteristics of Portland cements (Gebhardt 1995)…………………………………………………... 2.6 Ca(OH)2 content in pastes hydrated for 28 days ……. 2.7 Vicat Setting Times for ASTM and CSA Cements (Hooton 1990)……………………………………....... 2.8 Vicat Setting Times for Interground Cements at Constant Blaine (Hawkins 1986)……………………… 2.9 Vicat Setting Times for Interground Cements at Constant
