Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Report of RILEM TC 267—TRM: Improvement and robustness study of lime mortar strength test for assessing reactivity of SCMs

  • RILEM TC 267—TRM: Development and validation of tests for measuring the reactivity of supplementary cementitious materials
  • Published:
Materials and Structures Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

RILEM TC 267-TRM is studying tests for the reactivity supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). In the first phase, the lime reactivity (LR) test, which is standardised in Indian standard (IS)-1727, gave promising correlations with 90-days cement mortar strength. In Phase 2, working group 1 has looked at further optimisation and robustness study of the LR test. A parameter screening approach for improving the mix design to use fixed mass proportions targeting enhanced reproducibility and robustness was focused. The parameters studied include mixture properties such as the effects of lime (hydrated lime/calcium hydroxide-CH) to SCM ratio, water to binder (binder = CH + SCM) ratio (w/b), activators, curing temperature, and testing age as well as the impact of factors from different national standards (IS and European Committee for Standardisation-EN) such as mould size, shape & type of sand. The modified mixture recommended by the TC uses a fixed CH to SCM mass ratio of 1:1 and the addition of activators. Also, a higher curing temperature of 50 °C in comparison to the 27 °C specified in IS 1727, for the first 2 days is proposed to accelerate the early hydration especially for slowly reacting SCMs. It is also recommended that, the minimum purity and fineness of the CH need to be specified to obtain reproducible results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Snellings R, Scrivener KL (2016) Rapid screening tests for supplementary cementitious materials: past and future. Mater Struct 49:3265–3279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Li X, Snellings R, Antoni M et al (2018) Reactivity tests for supplementary cementitious materials: RILEM TC 267-TRM phase 1. Mater Struct Constr. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-018-1269-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. IS 1727 (2013) Methods of test for pozzolanic materials. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India

  4. Avet F, Snellings R, Alujas Diaz A et al (2016) Development of a new rapid, relevant and reliable (R3) test method to evaluate the pozzolanic reactivity of calcined kaolinitic clays. Cem Concr Res 85:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2016.02.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. ASTM C1897 - 20 (2020), Standard test methods for measuring the reactivity of supplementary cementitious materials by isothermal calorimetry and bound water. ASTM International, Philadelphia, USA

  6. Ranganath RV, Bhattacharjee B, Krishnamoorthy S (1998) Influence of size fraction of ponded ash on its pozzolanic activity. Cem Concr Res 28:749–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(98)00036-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bahurudeen A, Wani K, Basit MA, Santhanam M (2016) Assesment of pozzolanic performance of sugarcane bagasse ash. J Mater Civ Eng 28:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sharma RC, Jain NK, Ghosh SN (1993) Semi-theoretical method for the assessment of reactivity of fly ashes. Cem Concr Res 23:41–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(93)90133-T

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ravina D (1980) Optimized determination of PFA (fly ash) fineness with reference to pozzolanic activity. Cem Concr Res 10:573–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(80)90101-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Shah V, Parashar A, Medepalli S, Bishnoi S (2018) Prediction of carbonation using reactivity test methods for pozzolanic materials. Adv Cem Res. https://doi.org/10.1680/jadcr.18.00144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Parashar A, Bishnoi S (2020) A comparison of test methods to assess the strength potential of plain and blended supplementary cementitious materials. Constr Build Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Parashar A, Shah V, Bishnoi S (2018) Applicability of Lime Reactivity Strength Potential Test for the Reactivity Study of Limestone Calcined Clay Cement. In: Martirena F, Favier A, Scrivener K (eds) Calcined Clays for Sustainable Concrete. RILEM Bookseries, Springer, Dordrecht, pp 339–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1207-9_55

    Google Scholar 

  13. ASTM C311 - 1987 (1987) Test methods for sampling and testing fly ash and natural pozzolans for use as a mineral admixture in concrete: pozzolanic activity test with lime (withdrawn in 1992). ASTM International, Philadelphia, USA

  14. CSA A3004-08 E1 (2013) Standard practice for the evaluation of alternative supplementary cementing materials (ASCMs) for use in concrete. CSA Group, Mississauga, ON, Canada

  15. Kasaniya M, Thomas MDA, Moffatt EG (2019) Development of rapid and reliable pozzolanic reactivity test method. ACI Mater J 116:145–154. https://doi.org/10.14359/51716718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Murat M (1983) Hydration reaction and hardening of calcined clays and related materials. I. Preliminary investigation on metakaolinte. Cem Concr Res 13:259–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kasaniya M, Thomas MDA, Moffatt EG (2021) Pozzolanic reactivity of natural pozzolans, ground glasses and coal bottom ashes and implication of their incorporation on the chloride permeability of concrete. Cem Concr Res 139:106259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2020.106259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. EN 196-1 (2016) Methods of testing cement - part 1: Determination of strength. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium

  19. EN 197-1 (2000) Cement Part 1: Composition, specifications and conformity criteria for common cements. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium

  20. IS 650 Specification for standard sand for testing of cement. Bureau of indian standards, New Delhi, India

  21. Šavija B, Luković M (2016) Carbonation of cement paste: Understanding, challenges, and opportunities. Constr Build Mater 117:285–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.04.138

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A. Parashar and S. Bishnoi acknowledge financial support by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) Grant 81026665. Aneeta Mary Joseph acknowledges the financial support from the foundations Strategic Initiative Materials (SIM) in Flanders and Flanders Innovation & Entrepreneurship (VLAIO) of Project ASHCEM within the program MARES. S. Dolenec acknowledges the financial support from the Slovenian Research Agency (research core funding No. P2−0273).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Anuj Parashar

    Present address: Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA

  2. Johannes Haufe

    Present address: Zert Plus Überwachungsgesellschaft mbH, Bitterfeld-Wolfen, Germany

  3. Yuvaraj Dhandapani

    Present address: School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

  4. Mathieu Antoni

    Present address: Ciments Vigier SA, Zone industrielle Rondchâtel, CH-2603, Péry, Switzerland

  5. Xuerun Li

    Present address: BASF Construction Additives GmbH, Dr-Albert-Frank-Strasse 32, 83308, Trostberg, Germany

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, 110016, India

    Anuj Parashar & Shashank Bishnoi

  2. Institute of Building Materials Research, RWTH Aachen University, Schinkelstr, 3, 52062, Aachen, Germany

    Anya Vollpracht & Johannes Haufe

  3. Sustainable Materials Management, Flemish Institute of Technological Research (VITO), Boeretang 200, 2400, Mol, Belgium

    Ruben Snellings

  4. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, 600036, India

    Yuvaraj Dhandapani & Manu Santhanam

  5. Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute (ZAG), Dimičeva ulica 12, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Sabina Dolenec

  6. Scuola di Ingegneria, Università degli Studi della Basilicata, Viale dell’Ateneo Lucano, 10, 85100, Potenza, Italy

    Milena Marroccoli & Antonio Telesca

  7. Magnel-Vandepitte Laboratory for Structural Engineering and Building Materials, Technologiepark Zwijnaarde 60, 9052, Ghent, Belgium

    Aneeta Mary Joseph, Natalia Alderete & Nele De Belie

  8. HeidelbergCement AG Technology Center, Oberklamweg 2-4, 69181, Leimen, Germany

    Pawel Durdzinski & Mohsen Ben Haha

  9. Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Brunswick (UNB), 3 Bailey Dr, Fredericton, NB, E3B 5A3, Canada

    Mahipal Kasaniya & Michael Thomas

  10. Department of Civil Engineering, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 40-box 2448, 3001, Leuven, Belgium

    Özlem Cizer

  11. Holcim Technology Ltd., Im Schachen, 5113, Holderbank, Switzerland

    Mathieu Antoni

  12. LafargeHolcim Innovation Centre 95, rue du Montmurier BP 15, 38291, Saint-Quentin Fallavier, France

    Serge Sabio

  13. Laboratory of Construction Materials, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL), Station 12, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Xuerun Li & Karen L. Scrivener

  14. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 35 St., George St., Toronto, ON, M5S1A4, Canada

    R. Douglas Hooton

Authors
  1. Anuj Parashar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anya Vollpracht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Johannes Haufe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ruben Snellings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yuvaraj Dhandapani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Manu Santhanam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sabina Dolenec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Milena Marroccoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Antonio Telesca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Aneeta Mary Joseph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Natalia Alderete
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Nele De Belie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Pawel Durdzinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Mohsen Ben Haha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Mahipal Kasaniya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Michael Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Özlem Cizer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Mathieu Antoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Serge Sabio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Xuerun Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. R. Douglas Hooton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Karen L. Scrivener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Shashank Bishnoi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anuj Parashar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All co-authors are members in RILEM TC 267-TRM. None of the co-authors has financial conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This report has been prepared by RILEM TC 267-TRM: Tests for Reactivity of Supplementary Cementitious Materials. The paper has been reviewed and approved by all members of the TC.

TC Membership: Chair: Karen Scrivener, Switzerland; Deputy Chair: Ruben Snellings, Belgium; Members: Edgardo Irassar, Yury Andrés Villagran Zaccardi, Argentina; Natalia Alderete, Özlem Cizer, Nele De Belie, Asghar Gholizadeh-Vayghan, Aneeta Mary Joseph, Belgium; Josée Duchesne, R. Doug Hooton, Mahipal Kasaniya, Michael Thomas, Canada; Sui Tongbo, China; François Avet, Martin Cyr, Siham Kamali-Bernard, Cédric Patapy, Serge Sabio, Laurent Steger, France; Mohsen Ben Haha, Pawel Durdzinski, Johannes Haufe, Xuerun Li, Matthias Maier, Karl-Christian Thienel, Anya Vollpracht, Simone Schulze, Johannes Pfingsten, Germany; Shashank Bishnoi, Manu Santhanam, Anuj Parashar, Yuvaraj Dhandapani, India; Milena Marroccoli, Antonio Telesca, Italy; Guang Ye, Shizhe Zhang, Netherlands; Klaartje De Weerdt, Malene Thostrup Pedersen, Norway; Sabina Dolenec, Marusa Mrak, Slovenia; Diana Londono Zuluaga, Frank Winnefeld, Marta Palacios, Mathieu Antoni, Switzerland; Susan Bernal Lopez, Alastair Marsh, John Provis, Brant Walkley, UK; Maria C.G. Juenger, USA.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Parashar, A., Vollpracht, A., Haufe, J. et al. Report of RILEM TC 267—TRM: Improvement and robustness study of lime mortar strength test for assessing reactivity of SCMs. Mater Struct 55, 96 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-022-01911-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-022-01911-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation