Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of SCM reactivity to performance in cement-based mixtures

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

Abstract

Recently, there has been a push for the development of new reactivity tests as an increasing range of materials try to fill the demand for supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) in the concrete industry. RILEM Technical Committee 267-TRM evaluated current standardized and emerging methods for measuring SCM reactivity. The RILEM committee determined that a new reactivity test, the rapid, relevant, and reliable (R3) test, was reproducible across different laboratories, and results compared well with mortar compressive strength testing at 28 days for pozzolanic and latent hydraulic materials, but they did not consider the ability of the test to predict other properties, particularly those related to long-term durability. In this study, material classifications obtained from the R3 tests were compared to material performance in compressive strength, alkali-silica reactivity, sulfate resistance, and chloride penetrability testing. R3 classifications were effective at classifying compressive strength performance of mortar as well as chloride penetrability of concrete. Rapid reactivity tests can be used as a tool to predict material performance in concrete and help inform material choices before proceeding with more extensive performance testing.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Testing performed at the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT).

References

  1. 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 

  2. ASTM C1709 (2018) Standard Guide for Evaluation of Alternative Supplementary Cementitious Materials (ASCM) for Use in Concrete. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

  3. Kalina RD, Al-Shmaisani S, Ferron RD, Juenger MCG (2019) False positives in ASTM C618 specifications for natural Pozzolans. ACI Mater J 116:1–8. https://doi.org/10.14359/51712243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Seraj S, Juenger MCG (2016) Evaluation of an accelerated characterization method for Pozzolanic reactivity. Nov Charact Tech Adv Cem Mater Tribut to James J Beaudoin 1(1–1):16. https://doi.org/10.14359/51689364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Al-Shmaisani S, Kalina RD, Ferron RD, Juenger MCG (2022) Critical assessment of rapid methods to qualify supplementary cementitious materials for use in concrete. Cem Concr Res 153:106709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2021.106709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jang JK, Kalina RD, Al-Shmaisani S et al (2022) Assessing Pozzolanicity of supplementary cementitious materials using ASTM standard test methods. Adv Civ Eng Mater 11:20210149. https://doi.org/10.1520/ACEM20210149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Li X, Snellings R, Antoni M et al (2018) Reactivity tests for supplementary cementitious materials: RILEM TC 267-TRM phase 1. Mater Struct 51:151. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-018-1269-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lothenbach B, Durdziński P, De Weerdt K (2016) Thermogravimetric analysis. In: Scrivener K, Snellings R, Lothenbach B (eds) A practical guide to microstructural analysis of cementitious materials. Taylor and Francis Group, pp 177–211

  9. Snellings R, Scrivener KL (2016) Rapid screening tests for supplementary cementitious materials: past and future. Mater Struct 49:3265–3279. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-015-0718-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. NF P 18-513 Annexe A (2010) Détermination de la quantité d’hydroxyde de calcium fixé (essai Chapelle modifié)

  11. EN 196-5 (2011) Method of testing cement - Part 5: Pozzolanicity test for pozzolanic cement. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium

  12. IS 1727-1967 (2004) Methods of test for Pozzolanic materials. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  15. 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 

  16. ASTM C1897 (2020) Standard Test Methods for Measuring the Reactivity of Supplementary Cementitious Materials by Isothermal Calorimetry and Bound Water Measurements. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

  17. Ali HA, Xuan D, Poon CS (2020) Assessment of long-term reactivity of initially lowly-reactive solid wastes as supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). Constr Build Mater. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 

  19. 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 

  20. 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 

  21. Zajac M, Rossberg A, Le Saout G, Lothenbach B (2014) Influence of limestone and anhydrite on the hydration of Portland cements. Cem Concr Compos 46:99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.11.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Suraneni P, Hajibabaee A, Ramanathan S et al (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 

  23. Shakouri M, Exstrom CL, Ramanathan S et al (2020) Pretreatment of corn stover ash to improve its effectiveness as a supplementary cementitious material in concrete. Cem Concr Compos. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2020.103658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ramanathan S, Kasaniya M, Tuen M et al (2020) Linking reactivity test outputs to properties of cementitious pastes made with supplementary cementitious materials. Cem Concr Compos. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2020.103742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wang Y, Suraneni P (2019) Experimental methods to determine the feasibility of steel slags as supplementary cementitious materials. Constr Build Mater 204:458–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rajabipour F, Giannini E, Dunant C et al (2015) Alkali-silica reaction: current understanding of the reaction mechanisms and the knowledge gaps. Cem Concr Res 76:130–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.05.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Thomas M (2011) The effect of supplementary cementing materials on alkali-silica reaction: a review. Cem Concr Res 41:1224–1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.11.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Thomas M (2013) Supplementary cementing materials in concrete. Taylor and Francis Group

  29. Al-Shmaisani S, Kalina RD, Douglas Ferron R, Juenger MCG (2022) Assessment of blended coal source fly ashes and blended fly ashes. Constr Build Mater 342:127918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.127918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kalina RD, Al-Shmaisani S, Seraj S et al (2021) Role of alkalis in natural pozzolans on alkali-silica reaction. ACI Mater J 118:83–89. https://doi.org/10.14359/51732598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. ASTM C109/C109M (2020) Standard test method for compressive strength of hydraulic cement mortars (Using 2-in. or [50 mm] Cube Specimens). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

  32. ASTM C39/C39M (2020) Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

  33. ASTM C1567 (2013) Standard test method for determining the potential alkali-silica reactivity of combinations of cementitious materials and aggregate (Accelerated Mortar-Bar Method). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

  34. ASTM C1293 (2020) Standard test method for determination of length change of concrete due to alkali-silica reaction. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

  35. ASTM C1012/C1012M (2018) Standard test method for length change of hydraulic-cement mortars exposed to a sulfate solution. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

  36. ASTM C1202 (2019) Standard test method for electrical indication of concrete’s ability to resist chloride ion penetration. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

  37. EN 450-1 (2012) Fly ash for concrete - Part 1: Definition, specifications and conformity criteria. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium

  38. Londono-Zuluaga D, Gholizadeh-Vayghan A, Winnefeld F et al (2022) Report of RILEM TC 267-TRM phase 3: validation of the R3 reactivity test across a wide range of materials. Mater Struct 55:142. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-022-01947-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lothenbach B, Zajac M (2019) Application of thermodynamic modelling to hydrated cements. Cem Concr Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.105779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. ACI Committee 201 (2016) Guide to Durable Concrete (ACI 201.2R-16). Farmington Hills, MI

  41. Avet F, Scrivener K (2018) Investigation of the calcined kaolinite content on the hydration of limestone calcined clay cement (LC3). Cem Concr Res 107:124–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.02.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Adu-Amankwah S, Black L, Skocek J et al (2018) Effect of sulfate additions on hydration and performance of ternary slag-limestone composite cements. Constr Build Mater 164:451–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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 

  44. Wadsö L, Winnefeld F, Riding K, Sandberg P (2016) Calorimetry. In: Scrivener K, Snellings R, Lothenbach B (eds) A practical guide to microstructural analysis of cementitious materials. Taylor and Francis Group, pp 37–74

  45. 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 

  46. Berodier E, Scrivener K (2015) Evolution of pore structure in blended systems. Cem Concr Res 73:25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.02.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. De Belie N, Soutsos M, Gruyaert E (eds) (2018) Properties of Fresh and Hardened Concrete Containing Supplementary Cementitious Materials: State-of-the-Art Report of the RILEM Technical Committee 238-SCM, Working Group 4. (RILEM State-of-the-Art Reports; Vol. 25). Springer International Publishing

  48. Kaplan MF (1959) Flexural and compressive strength of concrete as affected by the properties of coarse aggregates. ACI J Proc. https://doi.org/10.14359/11415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Scrivener KL, Crumbie AK, Laugesen P (2004) The interfacial transition zone (ITZ) between cement paste and aggregate in concrete. Interface Sci 12:411–421. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:INTS.0000042339.92990.4c

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Weaver WS, Isabelle HL, Williamson F (1974) A study of cement and concrete correlation. J Test Eval 2:260–303. https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE10110J

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Thomas MDA, Folliard KJ (2007) Concrete aggregates and the durability of concrete. In: Page CL, Page MM (eds) Durability of concrete and cement composites. Woodhead Publishing, pp 247–281

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  52. Deschenes R, Jones C, Giannini ER, Hale M (2019) A modified chemical index to predict fly ash dosage for mitigating alkali-silica reaction. Adv Civ Eng Mater 8:699–722. https://doi.org/10.1520/ACEM20190191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Gholizadeh Vayghan A, Wright JR, Rajabipour F (2016) An extended chemical index model to predict the fly ash dosage necessary for mitigating alkali-silica reaction in concrete. Cem Concr Res 82:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.12.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ideker JH, Bentivegna AF, Folliard KJ, Juenger MCG (2012) Do current laboratory test methods accurately predict alkali-silica reactivity? ACI Mater J 109:395–402. https://doi.org/10.14359/51683914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Tanesi J, Drimalas T, Chopperla KST et al (2020) Divergence between performance in the field and laboratory test results for alkali-silica reaction. Transp Res Rec 2674:120–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198120913288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Shi Z, Ferreiro S, Lothenbach B et al (2019) Sulfate resistance of calcined clay – Limestone – Portland cements. Cem Concr Res 116:238–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.11.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Dhole R, Thomas MDA, Folliard KJ, Drimalas T (2013) Characterization of fly ashes for sulfate resistance. ACI Mater J 110:159–168. https://doi.org/10.14359/51685530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Layssi H, Ghods P, Alizadeh AR, Salehi M (2015) Electrical resistivity of concrete: concepts, applications, and measurement techniques. Concr Int 37(5):41–46

    Google Scholar 

  59. Spragg R, Villani C, Snyder K et al (2013) Factors that influence electrical resistivity measurements in cementitious systems. Transp Res Rec 11:90–98. https://doi.org/10.3141/2342-11

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) under Project 0-6966 for providing funding for the work. Katelyn O’Quinn, Jae Jang, Mike Rung, and Masoud Moradian, are thanked for assistance with data collection. The authors also thank Prannoy Suraneni, Sivakumar Ramanathan, Kevin Folliard, and Thanos Drimalas for their helpful discussions and insight regarding these topics, and the various suppliers of the materials used in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 301 E. Dean Keeton St. C1748, Austin, TX, 78712, USA

    Saif Al-Shmaisani, Ryan D. Kalina, Raissa Douglas Ferron & Maria C. G. Juenger

Authors
  1. Saif Al-Shmaisani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ryan D. Kalina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raissa Douglas Ferron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria C. G. Juenger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SA: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing—Original Draft, Visualization; RDK: Validation, Investigation, Writing—Review and Editing; RDF: Writing—Review and Editing; MCGJ: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—Review and Editing, Supervision, Project Administration, Funding Acquisition.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saif Al-Shmaisani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1237 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Shmaisani, S., Kalina, R.D., Ferron, R.D. et al. Comparison of SCM reactivity to performance in cement-based mixtures. Mater Struct 55, 241 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-022-02072-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-022-02072-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation