Skip to main content
Log in

Influence of supplementary cementitious material and filler fineness on their reactivity in model systems and cementitious pastes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Materials and Structures Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The influence of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) and filler fineness on their reactivity in model systems and in cementitious pastes was evaluated. Two SCMs–pumice (P), and glass powder (GP), and an inert filler–limestone (LS), with three different levels of fineness and median particle size (d50) values were tested using the modified R3 test to obtain direct measures of their reactivity. The reactivity of P and GP, indicated by the heat release and calcium hydroxide consumption, increased linearly as the d50 decreased (and fineness increased). However, for LS, the change in fineness did not influence the reactivity. These materials were used at a 30% replacement level by mass in cementitious pastes at a water-to-cementitious materials ratio of 0.40 and heat release, calcium hydroxide content, compressive strength, and bulk resistivity were monitored. The increasing fineness impacted property development in very similar ways for the P and the GP but not for the LS. For the SCMs, early- and later-age properties generally, but not always, had a linear correlation with median particle size. Bulk resistivity was a notable exception, with early-age values not depending on median particle size and later-age values showing a non-linear relationship with median particle size. For coarser materials, the impacts were largely driven by dilution and filler effect, but for finer materials, the impact of reactivity on property development was evident. The effects of SCM reactivity were more evident at later ages. The heat release and calcium hydroxide consumption measured in the modified R3 test were correlated to the 56-day calcium hydroxide content, compressive strength, and bulk resistivity in cementitious pastes.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Canada)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Scrivener KL, John VM, Gartner EM (2018) Eco-efficient cements: potential economically viable solutions for a low-CO2 cement-based materials industry. Cem Concr Res 114:2–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.03.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Juenger MCG, Snellings R, Bernal SA (2019) Supplementary cementitious materials: new sources, characterization, and performance insights. Cem Concr Res 122:257–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.05.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Snellings R (2016) Assessing, understanding and unlocking supplementary cementitious materials. RILEM Tech Lett 1:50. https://doi.org/10.21809/rilemtechlett.2016.12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Paris JM, Roessler JG, Ferraro CC, DeFord HD, Townsend TG (2016) A review of waste products utilized as supplements to Portland cement in concrete. J Clean Prod 121:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Seraj S, Cano R, Ferron RD, Juenger MCG (2017) The role of particle size on the performance of pumice as a supplementary cementitious material. Cem Concr Compos 80:135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2017.03.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Suraneni P, Hajibabaee A, Ramanathan S, Wang Y, Weiss J (2019) New insights from reactivity testing of supplementary cementitious materials. Cem Concr Compos 103:331–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2019.05.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lothenbach B, Scrivener K, Hooton RD (2011) Supplementary cementitious materials. Cem Concr Res 41:1244–1256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Moghaddam F, Sirivivatnanon V, Vessalas K (2019) The effect of fly ash fineness on heat of hydration, microstructure, flow and compressive strength of blended cement pastes. Case Stud Constr Mater 10:e00218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2019.e00218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chindaprasirt P, Jaturapitakkul C, Sinsiri T (2007) Effect of fly ash fineness on microstructure of blended cement paste. Constr Build Mater 21:1534–1541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.12.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gómez-Zamorano LY, Escalante-García JI (2010) Effect of curing temperature on the nonevaporable water in portland cement blended with geothermal silica waste. Cem Concr, Compos 32:603–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2010.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Han F, Liu R, Wang D, Yan P (2014) Characteristics of the hydration heat evolution of composite binder at different hydrating temperature. Therm Acta 586:52–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2014.04.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ramanathan S, Croly M, Suraneni P (2020) Comparison of the effects that supplementary cementitious materials replacement levels have on cementitious paste properties. Cem Concr Compos 112:103678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2020.103678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Antoni M, Rossen J, Martirena F, Scrivener K (2012) Cement substitution by a combination of metakaolin and limestone. Cem Concr Res 42:1579–1589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2012.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. de Weerdt K, Kjellsen KO, Sellevold E, Justnes H (2011) Synergy between fly ash and limestone powder in ternary cements. Cem Concr Compos 33:30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2010.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Vance K, Aguayo M, Oey T, Sant G, Neithalath N (2013) Hydration and strength development in ternary portland cement blends containing limestone and fly ash or metakaolin. Cem Concr Compos 39:93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.03.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hela R, Orsáková D (2013) The mechanical activation of fly ash. Proc Eng 65:87–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.09.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Blotevogel S, Ehrenberg A, Steger L, Doussang L, Kaknics J, Patapy C, Cyr M (2020) Ability of the R3 test to evaluate differences in early age reactivity of 16 industrial ground granulated blast furnace slags (GGBS). Cem Concr Res 130:105998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2020.105998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bentz DP, Ferraris CF, Galler MA, Hansen AS, Guynn JM (2012) Influence of particle size distributions on yield stress and viscosity of cement–fly ash pastes. Cem Concr Res 42:404–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.11.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Oey T, Kumar A, Bullard JW, Neithalath N, Sant G (2013) The filler effect: The influence of filler content and surface area on cementitious reaction rates. J Am Ceram Soc 96:1978–1990. https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.12264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Berodier E, Scrivener K (2014) Understanding the filler effect on the nucleation and growth of C-S-H. J Am Ceram Soc 97:3764–3773. https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.13177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gutteridge WA, Dalziel JA (1990) Filler cement: the effect of the secondary component on the hydration of portland cement: part I – A fine nonhydraulic filler. Cem Concr Res 20:778–782. https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(90)90011-L

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Erdogdu K, Tokyay M, Türker P (1999) Comparison of intergrinding and separate grinding for the production of natural pozzolan and GBFS-incorporated blended cements. Cem Concr Res 29:743–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(99)00039-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ghiasvand E, Ramezanianpour AA, Ramezanianpour AM (2014) Effect of grinding method and particle size distribution on the properties of Portland-pozzolan cement. Constr Build Mater 53:547–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Moraes JCB, Cordeiro GC, Akasaki JL, Vieira AP, Payá J (2021) Improving the reactivity of a former ground sugarcane bagasse ash produced by autogenous combustion through employment of two different additional grinding procedures. Constr Build Mater 270:121471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Perumal P, Niu H, Kiventerä J, Kinnunen P, Illikainen M (2020) Upcycling of mechanically treated silicate mine tailings as alkali activated binders. Min Eng 158:106587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2020.106587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cordeiro GC, Kurtis KE (2017) Effect of mechanical processing on sugar cane bagasse ash pozzolanicity. Cem Concr Res 97:41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.03.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Benezet JC, Benhassaine A (1999) Grinding and pozzolanic reactivity of quartz powders. Pow Tech 105:167–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-5910(99)00133-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Venkataraman KS, Narayanan KS (1998) Energetics of collision between grinding media in ball mills and mechanochemical effects. Pow Tech 96:190–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-5910(97)03368-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Luzu B, Duc M, Djerbi A, Gautron L (2020) High Performance Illitic Clay-Based Geopolymer: Influence of the Mechanochemical Activation Duration on the Strength Development. In: Bishnoi S (ed) Calcined Clays for Sustainable Concrete: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Calcined Clays for Sustainable Concrete. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2806-4_43

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Kalina RD, Al- Shmaisani S, Ferron D, Juenger MCG (2019) False positives in ASTM C618 specifications for natural pozzolans. ACI Mater J 116:165–172

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gava GP, Prudêncio LR (2007) Pozzolanic activity tests as a measure of pozzolans’ performance: part 2. Mag Concr Res 59:735–741. https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.2007.59.10.735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Avet F, Snellings R, Diaz AA, Haha MB, Scrivener K (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 

  33. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Suraneni P, Weiss J (2017) Examining the pozzolanicity of supplementary cementitious materials using isothermal calorimetry and thermogravimetric analysis. Cem Concr Compos 83:273–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2017.07.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ramanathan S, Kasaniya M, Tuen M, Thomas MDA, Suraneni P (2020) Linking reactivity test outputs to properties of cementitious pastes made with supplementary cementitious materials. Cem Concr Compos 114:103742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2020.103742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ramanathan S (2021) Reactivity of supplementary cementitious materials in model systems and cementitious pastes, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Miami

  38. Ramanathan S, Perumal P, Illikainen M, Suraneni P (2021) Mechanically activated mine tailings for use as supplementary cementitious materials. RILEM Tech Lett 6:61–69. https://doi.org/10.21809/rilemtechlett.2021.143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kim T, Olek J (2012) Effects of sample preparation and interpretation of thermogravimetric curves on calcium hydroxide in hydrated pastes and mortars. Transp Res Rec 2290:10–18. https://doi.org/10.3141/2290-02

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hosseinzadeh N, Kosar K, Ramanathan S, Suraneni P (2019) Operator-induced variability caused by hand mixing of cement paste–effects on fresh and hardened properties. Adv Civ Eng Mater 8:435–450. https://doi.org/10.1520/acem20190029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Spragg R, Villani C, Snyder K, Bentz D, Bullard JW, Weiss J (2013) Factors that influence electrical resistivity measurements in cementitious systems. Transp Res Rec 2342:90–98. https://doi.org/10.3141/2342-11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Skibsted J, Snellings R (2019) Reactivity of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) in cement blends. Cem Concr Res 124:105799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.105799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Chen X, Srubar WV III (2020) Sulfuric acid improves the reactivity of zeolites via dealumination. Constr Build Mater 264:120648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Schöler A, Lothenbach B, Winnefeld F, Ben Haha M, Zajac M, Ludwig HM (2017) Early hydration of SCM-blended portland cements: a pore solution and isothermal calorimetry study. Cem Concr Res 93:71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2016.11.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lothenbach B, Le Saout G, Gallucci E, Scrivener K (2008) Influence of limestone on the hydration of Portland cements. Cem Concr Res 38:848–860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2008.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Scrivener K, Ouzia A, Juilland P, Mohamed AK (2019) Advances in understanding cement hydration mechanisms. Cem Concr Res 124:105823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.105823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kumar A, Oey T, Kim S, Thomas D, Badran S, Li J, Fernandes F, Neithalath N, Sant G (2013) Simple methods to estimate the influence of limestone fillers on reaction and property evolution in cementitious materials. Cem Concr Compos 42:20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Bouasker M, Mounanga P, Turcry P, Loukili A, Khelidj A (2008) Chemical shrinkage of cement pastes and mortars at very early age: effect of limestone filler and granular inclusions. Cem Concr Compos 30:13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2007.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Scrivener KL, Juilland P, Monteiro PJM (2015) Advances in understanding hydration of Portland cement. Cem Concr Res 78:38–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.05.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Fanghui H, Qiang W, Mutian L, Yingjun M (2016) Early hydration properties of composite binder containing limestone powder with different finenesses. J Therm Anal Cal 123:1141–1151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-015-5088-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hallet V, De Belie N, Pontikes Y (2020) The impact of slag fineness on the reactivity of blended cements with high-volume non-ferrous metallurgy slag. Constr Build Mater 257:119400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sánchez EC, Torres E, Diaz MC, Saito F (2004) Effects of grinding of the feldspar in the sintering using a planetary ball mill. J Mat Proc Tech 152:284–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.04.367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Mirzahosseini M, Riding KA (2015) Influence of different particle sizes on reactivity of finely ground glass as supplementary cementitious material (SCM). Cem Concr Compos 56:95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Antiohos SK, Papadakis VG, Tsimas S (2014) Rice husk ash (RHA) effectiveness in cement and concrete as a function of reactive silica and fineness. Cem Concr Res 61:20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2014.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Rajak MAA, Majid ZA, Ismail M (2019) Pozzolanic activity of nanosized palm oil fuel ash: A comparative assessment with various fineness of palm oil fuel ash. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 220:012061. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/220/1/012061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Kasaniya M, Alaibani A, Thomas MDA, Riding KA (2022) Exploring the efficacy of emerging reactivity tests in screening pozzolanic materials. Constr Build Mater 325:126781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 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 23:335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465(01)00016-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sanjuán MÁ, Argiz C, Gálvez JC, Moragues A (2015) Effect of silica fume fineness on the improvement of Portland cement strength performance. Constr Build Mater 96:55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Adu-Amankwah S, Bernal Lopez SA, Black L (2019) Influence of component fineness on hydration and strength development in ternary slag-limestone cements. RILEM Tech Lett 4:81–88. https://doi.org/10.21809/rilemtechlett.2019.89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Chindaprasirt P, Jaturapitakkul C, Sinsiri T (2005) Effect of fly ash fineness on compressive strength and pore size of blended cement paste. Cem Concr Compos 27:425–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2004.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Shi C, Wu Y, Riefler C, Wang H (2005) Characteristics and pozzolanic reactivity of glass powders. Cem Concr Res 35:987–993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.05.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Vollpracht A, Lothenbach B, Snellings R, Haufe J (2016) The pore solution of blended cements: a review. Mater Struct. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-015-0724-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Wang Y, Burris L, Shearer CR, Hooton D, Suraneni P (2021) Strength activity index and bulk resistivity index modifications that differentiate inert and reactive materials. Cem Concr Compos 124:104240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.104240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Kasaniya M, Thomas MDA, Moffatt EG (2021) Efficiency of natural pozzolans, ground glasses and coal bottom ashes in mitigating sulfate attack and alkali-silica reaction. Cem Concr Res 149:106551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2021.106551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 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 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Financial support from the Knight Foundation Endowment in the College of Engineering for the third author and from the Graduate School Dissertation Fellowship (University of Miami) for the first author is gratefully acknowledged. Andrea Tito, Jasmine Kaur, and Cynthia Jimenez (Titan America) are thanked for material supply and their assistance with testing. Eric Wishart (Columbia River Carbonates) and Brian Jeppsen (Hess Pumice) are thanked for providing some of the SCMs studied.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Prannoy Suraneni.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ramanathan, S., Tuen, M. & Suraneni, P. Influence of supplementary cementitious material and filler fineness on their reactivity in model systems and cementitious pastes. Mater Struct 55, 136 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-022-01980-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-022-01980-2

Keywords