is there any true application -relevant parameter …...strength. performance. passion. the water...
Post on 04-Apr-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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 !
The Water Demand of Cement, Peter Kruspan & Julian Link, 2 Mar 2016 3
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Weidler & Kruspan, unpublished Weidler & Kruspan, unpublished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
The Water Demand of Cement, Peter Kruspan & Julian Link, 2 Mar 2016 5
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
The Water Demand of Cement, Peter Kruspan & Julian Link, 2 Mar 2016 6
… 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)
The Water Demand of Cement, Peter Kruspan & Julian Link, 2 Mar 2016 7
• 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
[%]
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
320
370
420
470
520
01 02 03 04 05 07 08
Conc
rete
Slu
mp
Flow
(Ini
tial)
[mm
]
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
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
The Water Demand of Cement, Peter Kruspan & Julian Link, 2 Mar 2016 8
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)
The Water Demand of Cement, Peter Kruspan & Julian Link, 2 Mar 2016 9
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) …?
The Water Demand of Cement, Peter Kruspan & Julian Link, 2 Mar 2016 10
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
The Water Demand of Cement, Peter Kruspan & Julian Link, 2 Mar 2016 11
top related