Is There Any True Application -Relevant Parameter …...Strength. Performance. Passion. The Water Demand of Cement – Is There Any True Application -Relevant Parameter Existing? Peter

Strength. Performance. Passion.

The Water Demand of Cement – Is There Any True Application-Relevant Parameter Existing?

Peter Kruspan & Julian Link

2 March 2016

World Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The Water Demand of Cement, Peter Kruspan & Julian Link, 2 Mar 2016 2

Principal Relation between Water Cement Ratio and Strength Walz (1958)

Range of Clinker (“fool-proof”) Particles have low intrinsic porosity Low water cement ratio High compressive strength

Range of (most) Mineral Components MIC Particles have high intrinsic porosity Higher water cement ratio Lower compressive strength (Simple) clinker substitution limited Admixtures / Cement Additives required Concrete technology no longer “fool-proof”

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h at

28

Day

s

Water Cement Ratio

The parameter ‘Water Demand’ is decisive when considering the substitution of clinker !


Examples of Clinker Substitution Materials (MIC) ESEM Images

Weidler & Kruspan, unpublished Weidler & Kruspan, unpublished

High intrinsic porosity Low grinding fineness

High intrinsic porosity High grinding fineness

4 The Water Demand of Cement, Peter Kruspan & Julian Link, 2 Mar 2016

Examples of Clinker Substitution Materials (MIC) ‘Pore Volume’ – BET N2

0.00E+00

1.00E-05

2.00E-05

3.00E-05

4.00E-05

5.00E-05

6.00E-05

7.00E-05

8.00E-05

9.00E-05

1.00E-04

1.10E-04

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0

Pore Width [nm]

dV (C

hang

e of

Por

e Vo

lum

e at

Por

e W

idth

) [cm

3 /g*A

]

P 1016 BOS Z3

P 1016 BOS Z4

P 1016 BOS Z5

P 1016 BOS Z6

P 1026 GGBFS Z3

P 1026 GGBFS Z4

P 1026 GGBFS Z5

P 1026 GGBFS Z6

Pore volume of gBOS is >1 order of magnitude higher than of GGBFS, at same grinding fineness

Wei

dler

& K

rusp

an (u

npub

lishe

d)

Gro

und

Bur

nt O

il Sh

ale

Gro

und

Gra

n. B

last

Fu

rnac

e Sl

ag


Scale Some Examples Effort and Effect Cement (Powder)

• Specific Surface (Blaine EN 196-6, BET, …) • Granulometry / Particle Size Distribution (Laser

Diffractometer) • Fineness (Alpine Sieve Residue EN 196-6) • Particle Packing Dry (Litre Weight Boehme)

Low manual effort Result generation rather fast (often) statistically robust data …but limited practical relevance

of interpretation

Paste • Standard Consistence EN 196-3 • Particle Packing Wet (Puntke) • Schleibinger Viskomat NT • Anton Paar / Physica Viscometer

Mortar • EN 459-2 (Haegermann Shock Table) • ASTM C 311 (Shock Table) • Holcim Cone • MBE Mortier de Béton Equivalent • Lafarge Liftomat • Torque Mixer • Schleibinger Viskomat NT / XT

Concrete • Concrete Rheomat O. Wallevik ConTec BML 4 • Schleibinger Viskomat XT • Schleibinger eBT2 (mobile Rheometer) • Concrete Workability Methods acc. EN 12350 Slump (SM) – EN 12350-2 Slump Flow (AM) – EN 12350-5 Compaction Degree Walz (VM) – EN 12350-4

High / huge manual effort Result generation rather slow (often) statist. fluctuating data …but strong practical relevance

of interpretation

Methods for Assessing the Water Demand A Simplified View from the Industry

DILE

MM

A 1

in red: standardized methods in the cement industry


… but There is Still Another Level of Complexity when Upscaling from Controlled Lab Environment to the ‘Real (Industrial) World’…

Laboratory Cement

Industrial Cement Industrial Concrete

“Real World” / Final Target

Some constraints

Many constraints / high complexity

DILEMMA 2

Imag

es: M

. Hol

pert

(200

6)

Laboratory Mortar

Laboratory Concrete

The ‘Mk I Apparatus’ of G.H. Tattersall (1970)

University of Sheffield, U.K.

Zabel Magdeburg / Niehoff Weimar 8th Regensburg Colloquium 1999

Testing / TomTomTools (2014)


• Good repeatability / reproducibility of water demand when tested on paste (EN 196-3) and mortar (Torque Mixer).

• Water demand as tested in concrete does not allow for any consistent conclusions: the term ‘standard concrete’ does not exist! direct comparison or even correlation of EN 196-3 and Torque Mixer to concrete slump flow is therefore not feasible.

• The sequence of EN 196-3 data (from lowest water demand to highest) is exactly opposite to the one of Torque Mixer ! Hypothesis: EN 196-3 responds to pure fineness / Blaine values (higher Blaine leading to higher EN 196-3 water demand) whereas Torque Mixer responds much more to the content on (porous) Mineral Components.

Key Result of Holcim RRT: “Torque Mixer is very precise, initial procedure however does not allow sufficient correlation to (our) concretes”

210.0

215.0

220.0

225.0

230.0

235.0

240.0

245.0

250.0

01 02 03 04 05 07 08

Tota

l Wat

er A

dded

(Wat

er R

equi

rem

ent)

[ml]

Rohoznik CEM I 52.5 N White quick

Rohoznik CEM I 42,5 R

Rohoznik CEM II B-M (S-V-LL) 32,5 R

25.0

26.0

27.0

28.0

29.0

30.0

31.0

32.0

33.0

34.0

01 02 03 04 05 07 08

EN 1

96-3

Pas

teW

ater

Dem

and

[%]




320

370

420

470

520

01 02 03 04 05 07 08

Conc

rete

Slu

mp

Flow

(Ini

tial)

[mm

]




Water Demand of 3 Cements from RN tested in Labs 01 to 08

Past

e EN

196

-3

Torq

ue M

ixer

C

oncr

ete


Detailed Investigation of Initial Procedure for Torque Mixer No Correlation to Both Fundamental Rheological Parameters To

rque

Mix

er

Visk

omat

NT

(Fin

e M

orta

r)

EN 1

2350

-5 (C

oncr

ete)

• 4 Different Commercial (Industrial) Cements

• at least 4 Repetitions per Parameter

Plastic Viscosity (Fine Mortar) Yield Stress (Fine Mortar)


First Results of Modified Procedure for Torque Mixer Good Correlation to (…One Particular Standard Lab…) Concrete

Torque MixerFinal Torque at 5 minutes at 15 minutes at 30 minutes at 45 minutes at 60 minutes

[Nm] [cm] [cm] [cm] [cm] [cm]

Cement A 3.4 44 43 42 41 39Cement A 3.5 43 42 41 40 39Cement B 2.8 45 44 43 42 40Cement C 2.8 46 45 44 43 42Cement C 2.8 45 44 43 42 41Cement D 3.0 46 45 44 42 41Cement D 2.9 46 45 44 42 40Cement E 3.6 44 42 40 39 38Cement E 3.5 45 44 43 42 40Cement F 2.8 46 45 44 43 42Cement F 2.7 45 44 43 42 41Cement G 3.3 44 42 40 39 38Cement G 3.3 44 42 40 39 38Cement H 3.4 44 43 41 40 38Cement H 3.4 44 43 42 40 38Cement I 4.6 42 41 40 39 38Cement I 4.5 42 41 40 38 36

Correlation 1.00 -0.89 -0.84 -0.74 -0.79 -0.80

Concrete Slump Flow EN 12350-5

…but: are these concrete slump flow values really the true reference (the true / ‘universal’ application-relevant parameter) …?


1. The increasing addition of clinker replacement materials (MIC) into cement widen the gap between standard methods currently used in the cement industry (‘ideal old world’) and daily application-related phenomena observed in the field (‘real new world’).

2. From the many proposed ‘alternative methods’ (application-oriented mortar tests, more sophisticated rheological assessments etc.) none has so far reached standard character, not even for quite simple purposes A ‘device plus manual’ alone is not sufficient, you need statistically robust

procedure(s) valid for many different configurations (material-wise, regional-wise, application-wise) ‘a validated / approved standard’

Many stand-alone / non-harmonized solutions (or even dogmas) exist, not only among (cement) companies but also within (cement) companies. Too often labs only believe in their own concept collaboration + compromises are required!

Chicken-egg dilemma: who is the first mover? Who invests time and resources? Final target: acceptance of standardization bodies

For the time being EN 12350 testing is still our standard reference … 3. One single / true / universal application-relevant parameter is still not around

Exchange of information between producer and customer is based on expert dialogue

Conclusions


Documents

Is There Any True Application -Relevant Parameter …...Strength. Performance. Passion. The Water Demand of Cement – Is There Any True Application -Relevant Parameter Existing? Peter