Ibrahim, Issa, Al-Obaidi, Huang, Dahhan, and Lopez
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
1
EFFECT OF LIMESTONE AND INORGANIC PROCESSING ADDITION ON THE
PERFORMANCE OF CONCRETE FOR PAVEMENT AND BRIDGE DECKS
Mustapha A. Ibrahim
Research Assistant
Phone: 313-231-5069
[email protected]
Mohsen A. Issa (Corresponding Author)
Professor
2095 Engineering Research Facility
842 West Taylor Street, Chicago, IL 60607,
Phone:(312) 996-3432
Mobile: (312) 375-8186
Fax:(312) 996-2426
[email protected]
Mustafa Al-Obaidi
Former UIC Research Assistant
Staff Structural Engineer
HBM Engineering Group, LLC
Phone: 312-863-1755
[email protected]
John Huang
IDOT, District 1
Area Construction Supervisor
Phone: 847-846-7261
[email protected]
Abdul Dahhan
IDOT, District 1
Bureau Chief of Materials
Phone: 847-705-4361
[email protected]
Carmen Lopez
IDOT, District 1
[email protected]
Civil and Materials Department
University of Illinois at Chicago
842 W. Taylor St
Chicago, Illinois 60607
A Paper Submitted for Presentation at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Total words = 5,487 + 250*8 (5 Tables and 3 Figures) = 7,487
Paper revised from original submittal.
Ibrahim, Issa, Al-Obaidi, Huang, Dahhan, and Lopez
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
2
ABSTRACT
The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) is making several changes to concrete mix
designs, using revisions to cement specification ASTM C150/AASHTO M 85 and ASTM
C465/AASHTO M 327. These proposed revisions will enable use of more sustainable materials
for concrete pavements, overlays, and bridge decks. Accordingly, a study was conducted by the
University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) to test the performance of concrete batched with cement
comprising less (conventional) and more (modified) than 5% by weight of limestone and
inorganic processing additions (IPA) specified in ASTM C465/AASHTO M 327, and/or
insoluble residue (IR) content above the specified limit by ASTM C150.
Twenty-four concrete mixes with different cementitious combinations and aggregates
were developed for this study. Each cement source was batched in a concrete mixture by
replacing 30% of the total cement content with fly ash or slag. Also, each cementitious
combination was batched with fine aggregates (natural or combined sand) and coarse aggregate
(crushed limestone).
The study included measuring fresh properties such as slump, air content, unit weight,
and setting time. The hardened properties included measuring the strength and durability for each
concrete mix combination. The strength results were measured in terms of compressive and
flexural strength, and the durability results were measured in terms of rapid chloride penetration
resistance (coulombs) and water permeability (DIN 1048).
The study found similar performance in terms of strength and durability of concrete
between the conventional and modified cements and demonstrated their performance with fly ash
or slag replacements and fine aggregate types.
KEYWORDS: Air content, chemical admixtures, chloride penetration, compressive strength,
durability, flexural strength, fly ash, hardened entrained air, inorganic processing addition,
insoluble residue, permeability, limestone, setting time, slag, workability
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Ibrahim, Issa, Al-Obaidi, Huang, Dahhan, and Lopez
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
3
INTRODUCTION
The addition of limestone and alternative raw materials to cement to reduce CO2 emissions in the
cement production and concrete industries has been used in Europe for decades, with quantities
up to 35% replacement of cement by weight. The Canadian Standards Association (CSA A3000)
recently approved the addition of limestone in cement up to 15% by weight. The success in
modifying cement production in both Europe and Canada prompted the United States to move
toward a more sustainable approach in the cement production and concrete industries. The
current ASTM C150/AASHTO M 85 and ASTM C465/AASHTO M 327 specifications state that
maximum limestone and IPA of cement is limited to 5% by weight.
IDOT is pushing forward in its efforts to modify the ASTM specifications to approve the
use of limestone and IPA with more than 5% replacement of cement by weight. If this
modification is approved, it will have both an environmental and economic impact on the
concrete industry in the United States.
From a sustainability standpoint, cement production is energy intensive and harmful to
the environment because of the high temperatures required to burn the raw materials and also
because of the emission of gaseous by-products in that process. On average, each ton of cement
produced from a cement plant accounts for 0.92 tons of CO2 emissions (1).
The emission of CO2 and other gases from cement production is attributed primarily to
the calcination process of limestone and fuel combustion. Calcination is necessary in the process
of cement production and now it accounts for more than 60% of total CO2 emissions (1).
The addition of more than 5% limestone and IPA to cement, as proposed by IDOT, will
mitigate some environmental problems by reducing the amount of raw materials burned to
produce cement and to reduce the carbon footprint by at least 3% to 4% of total CO2 emissions.
The modification will also help reduce the depletion of natural resources and will offer a lowcost, efficient method to secure waste materials.
BACKGROUND
Most studies were conducted in Europe and Canada to document the performance of Portland
cement when replaced by alternative materials with different quantities and properties. Studies
conducted on adding IPA to cement were very limited for this research. Therefore, the literature
focused on studies investigated adding limestone to cement by blending or intergrinding. Studies
that were conducted in Canada were initiated after the Canadian Cementitious Materials
Compendium CAN/CSA A 3000 adopted the use of up to 15% Portland-limestone cement. For
Portland cement with limestone, it is noted the following: “the appropriate choice of clinker
quality, limestone quality, % limestone content and cement fineness can lead to the production of
a limestone cement with the desired properties”(2). Accordingly, the effect of adding limestone
to cement in concrete has been attributed through many studies to the quality and quantity of
limestone, production method whether it was blended or interground with cement, cement
particle size distribution and shape, Blaine fineness, and adding other cementitious and
pozzolanic materials. Tsivilis et al. (2) observed that cement with up to 10% limestone with
fineness up to a limit value, showed insignificant strength reduction compared to pure cement.
Most recently, three major studies were published in Canada on the effect of limestone addition
on the strength and durability properties of concrete. These studies were conducted by Thomas et
al (3), Thomas et al (4), and Hooton et al. (5). Their results strongly supported the validation to
increase the limestone content up to 15% replacement to cement by weight in Canada.
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Ibrahim, Issa, Al-Obaidi, Huang, Dahhan, and Lopez
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
IDOT is making several changes to concrete mix designs, using revisions to cement
specification ASTM C150/AASHTO M 85 and ASTM C465/AASHTO M 327 for the new
IDOT Standard Specifications book. Current specifications allow addition of limestone and IPA
content up to 5% and IR content up to 0.75% of cement weight. The addition of more than 5%
limestone and IPA and the increase in IR content above 0.75% require strength and durability
testing. Because of the lack of experimental test data, an experimental investigation was
conducted at UIC to assess the strength gain, ultimate strength, and durability characteristics of
concrete mixes containing Portland cements with more than 5% limestone and IPA, and/or with
IR exceeding 0.75% in combination with fly ash or slag.
MATERIAL SELECTION AND MIX DESIGN
The sources of materials procured for the study are: (a) two sources of cement, (b) one source of
coarse aggregate, (c) two sources of fine aggregate, and (d) one source of class C fly ash and one
source of Grade 100 slag. Each cement source (Cem1 and Cem3) provided cement with
limestone and IPA less than and exceeding 5% in accordance with ASTM C465. Ground,
granulated blast furnace slag was used as IPA for cement with more than 5% limestone and IPA.
The cement properties are shown in Table 1.
Cem1 source was prepared by intergrinding limestone and partially intergrinding IPA at
CTL laboratory in Skokie, Illinois. Cem3 was produced by intergrinding limestone and
homogeneously blending IPA. Because of a shortage of Cem3, the producer delivered a new
shipment labeled Cem3R because it has 0.8% limestone more than the original Cem3. The IR
content of ASTM C150 and AASHTO M 85 Portland cements is limited per the specifications to
a maximum of 0.75% by weight. Cem2 is made by blending Cem1 with fly ash that has 0.49%
and 32.41% IR, respectively, to give Cem2 with 0.75% IR and Cem2 with 1.5% IR.
As a result, Cem1 and Cem3 were produced to test the performance of concrete mixes
with cement exceeding 5% of limestone and IPA, and Cem2 was prepared to test the
performance of cement in concrete with higher amount of IR. The designations for cements with
less than 5% limestone and IPA, or with 0.75% IR is Cem<5%, and the designation for cements
with more than 5% limestone and IPA, or with 1.5% IR is Cem>5%.
TABLE 1 Amount of Limestone and IPA to Cement and their Blaine Fineness
Cement
Source
Cem1<5%
Cem1>5%
Cem2<5%
Cem2>5%
Cem3<5%
Cem 3>5%
Cem3R<5%
Cem3R>5%
Note:
157
158
159
160
161
4
% of Limestone and Inorganic
Processing Additions
Limestone
Inorganic Process
Total
4.2
3.8
4.2
4.2
0
4.5
2.6
2.5
3.4
3.1
0
3
0
3
380
407
Insoluble
Residue
(%)
Blaine
Fineness
(m2/Kg)
1 Day
Compressive Strength, psi
3 Day
7 Day
28 Day
0.49
0.50
380
407
2070
2010
3800
3940
5020
4650
6130
6400
385
383
378
386
2960
2920
2910
3183
4340
4160
4043
4413
5070
5020
4648
5220
5973
6390
0.75
1.5
385
383
378
386
0.20
0.18
0.21
0.15
1 Mpa = 145.037 psi
Note: Cem2<5% and Cem2>5% were prepared by blending Cem1<5% and fly ash at UIC laboratory
Only aggregates demonstrating a history of good performance for durability are used in
this study. The coarse aggregate was provided by Hanson MS Thornton quarry with a minimum
45% passing ½ in. sieve. The fine aggregate was provided by MS Romeoville and Bluff City
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Ibrahim, Issa, Al-Obaidi, Huang, Dahhan, and Lopez
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
5
material in South Beloit. The Grade 100 slag and Class C fly ash were provided by Holcim
Skyway and Pleasant Prairie, respectively.
Twenty-four concrete mixes were conducted at the UIC concrete research laboratory.
Each mix was batched with Cem<5% and Cem>5% and with 30% replacement by weight with
slag or fly ash. A total of 535 lb/yd3 of cementitous materials were used for the concrete mix
proportioning. The concrete mix design contained 375 lb/yd3 cement and 160 lb/yd3 Grade 100
slag or 160 lb/yd3 class C fly ash, 0.4 to 0.44 w/cm by weight, freeze/thaw-resistant coarse
aggregate, fine aggregate of natural sand or combined sand (50% natural and 50% crushed
limestone), and a mortar factor of 0.88.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The mixture design proportioning was based on 1 yd3. Several 1–3 ft³ trial batches were made for
each mix and were calibrated to yield an air content ranging between 5 and 8% and
approximately 3.5 in. slump. The fresh properties for each concrete mix included measuring the
slump, unit weight, air content, setting times, concrete mix temperature, and ambient
temperature. The hardened properties included the evaluation of strength and durability. Each
mix required 18 ft3 of fresh concrete that was divided into three 6 ft3 batches to cast the
specimens for the strength and durability study. The first batch was used to cast the specimens
for compressive strength, the second to cast the specimens for flexural strength, and the third to
cast the required specimens for the durability study. Table 2 lists the tests performed for the
fresh, strength, and durability properties of each concrete mix.
TABLE 2 ASTM/AASHTO Test Methods for Concrete Mixtures
Tests
Test Method
Suggested Values
Curing Period
Testing
Periods
Fresh Properties
Slump
Yield Unit
Weight
Air Content
Setting Time
ASTM C143
AASHTO T 119
ASTM C138
AASTHO T 121
ASTM C231
AASHTO T 121
ASTM C403
AASTHO T 197
2- 4 in, (3.5 in)
After 0 and 12
minutes from
discharge
6.5±1.5%, (6.5 %)
Strength Properties
Compressive
Strength
Flexural Strength
ASTM C39
AASHTO T 22
ASTM C78
AASHTO T 97
3500 psi after 14 days
600 psi after 14 days
Moisture room
until testing
3, 7, 14, 28,
and 56 day
28, 152, 332 days
wet curing
28 days dry curing
After 56, 180,
360 days total
curing
Durability Properties
Rapid Chloride
Ion Permeability
Water
Permeability
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
ASTM C1202
AASTHO T 277
DIN 1048
50 mm maximum penetration
Note: DIN 1048 is a German standard test
Hardened Concrete Strength Properties
The compressive and flexural strength tests were conducted according to ASTM C39/AASHTO
T 22 and ASTM C78/AASHTO T 97, respectively, at 3, 7, 14, 28, and 56 day. The compressive
specimens were capped with plastic covers, and the flexural specimens were covered with wet
burlaps and stored indoors under ambient temperature for 24 hours after casting. The specimens
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Ibrahim, Issa, Al-Obaidi, Huang, Dahhan, and Lopez
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
6
were then demolded and stored in the moisture room under a controlled temperature of 23°C
(73°F) and 100% humidity (according to ASTM C511/AASHTO M 201) until the testing dates.
Hardened Concrete Durability Properties
The durability tests included the rapid chloride ion penetration test (RCPT) and water
permeability.
Rapid Chloride Ion Penetration Test (RCPT)
Six 4x8 cylinders were cast for each concrete mix. The cylinders were divided into three sets.
Each set was cured in the moisture room [23°C (73°F) and 100% humidity] for 28, 152, and 332
days, respectively, and was then subject to 28 days of dry curing before testing. Each concrete
cylinder was cut using a diamond saw to obtain three 4x2 disks. The RCPT was conducted in
accordance with ASTM C1202/AASHTO T 277, which determines the electrical conductivity of
concrete as an indicator of its resistance to the penetration of chloride ions. The test was
conducted on each concrete mix at 56, 180, and 360 days.
Water Permeability Test
Nine 8x8x5 prisms were cast for each concrete mix. The concrete prisms were divided into
three sets. The curing procedure and testing days are same as the RCPT test. The prisms were
assembled in test cells, then a 100 kPa (1 bar) water pressure was applied by means of a water
tank connected to an air compressor through a valve for the first 48 hours, followed by 300 kPa
(3 bar) and 700 kPa (7 bar) pressures for 24 hours each.
The prisms were then removed from the cells, surface dried, and split in half
perpendicular to the injected surface. The maximum depth of water penetration was measured on
the two halves of the split specimen by means of a Vernier Caliper, and the average depth was
deduced. The resulting values explained water permeability of concrete in terms of the depth of
water penetration. For all practical purposes, it is classified 'watertight' when the penetration
depth is less than 50 mm.
DISCUSSION OF TESTING RESULTS
The testing results were reported for the fresh, strength, and durability properties of each
concrete mix. The investigation of testing results included studying the effect of the following:
 Effect of limestone and IPA, and IR on the fresh and hardened properties of concrete
 Effect of fly ash or slag replacements
 Effect of fine aggregate sources (natural or combined sand)
Fresh Properties
The mix design and fresh properties for the twenty-four concrete mixes (Mix 1–Mix 24) are
shown in Table 3. Mix 1–Mix 12 were batched with natural sand and Mix 13–Mix 24 were
batched with combined sand. Cem1 was used for Mix 1–Mix 4 and Mix 13–Mix 16. Cem2 was
used for Mix 5–Mix 8 and Mix 17‒Mix 20. Cem3R and Cem3 were used for Mix 9–Mix 12 and
Mix 21‒Mix 24, respectively. Presented in Table 3 are the slumps, percentage of fresh air
content, unit weight, setting times, and admixture dosage for the durability batches of each
concrete mix combination.
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Ibrahim, Issa, Al-Obaidi, Huang, Dahhan, and Lopez
238
TABLE 3 Fresh Properties of the Twenty-Four Concrete Mixes
Mixes batched with Combined
Sand
Mixes batched with Natural Sand
Mix No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Note:
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
7
Durability Batch
Admixture Dosage, fl oz/cwt
Mix Design
Slump
High-Range
Air
Water
, in.
Water
Entraining
Reducer
Reducer
Agent
Cem1<5%_F
–
1.0
0.9
3.5
Cem1>5%_F
–
1.2
0.9
3.5
Cem1<5%_S
1.0
1.8
1.1
3.5
Cem1>5%_S
2.1
1.1
2.0
3.25
Cem2<5%_F
–
1.3
0.9
3.5
Cem2>5%_F
–
1.3
0.9
3.75
Cem2<5%_S
1.3
2.1
1.6
4.5
Cem2>5%_S
1.3
2.1
1.4
5.75
Cem3R<5%_F
–
0.4
0.4
3.75
Cem3R>5%_F
–
0.4
0.3
4.5
Cem3R<5%_S
0.4
0.6
1.1
3.5
Cem3R>5%_S
0.4
0.6
1.0
3.5
Cem1<5%_F
3.0
3.8
6.0
5.25
Cem1>5%_F
3.8
3.4
6.3
4.75
Cem1<5%_S
3.0
3.8
10.2
4.5
Cem1>5%_S
3.8
3.8
10.2
5.5
Cem2<5%_F
3.8
4.4
4.3
4
Cem2>5%_F
3.8
4.7
4.3
5
Cem2<5%_S
4.3
5.1
12.4
5.25
Cem2>5%_S
4.3
4.7
12.7
4.75
Cem3<5%_F
3.7
3.4
6.3
4.25
Cem3>5%_F
3.8
3.3
6.5
5.5
Cem3<5%_S
3.4
3.8
10.2
4.25
Cem3>5%_S
3.8
3.8
10.2
4
fl oz/cwt: US fluid ounce per 100 lbs of cementitious content
1 in.=25.4 mm
lbs/ft3=16.018 Kg/m3
Cem1<5%_F: Concrete mix made with Cem1<5% and fly ash
Cem2>5%_S: concrete mix made with Cem2>5% and slag
Fresh Air
Content,
%
Unit
Weight,
lbs/ft3
7.8
144.72
7.5
145.08
7.5
145.08
7.3
145.88
7.9
144.92
8.1
144.36
8
144.72
8
144.72
7.2
145.84
7.7
145.04
7.2
146.2
7.5
145
6.9
146.84
7.4
145
8.1
143.6
6.9
146.04
7.9
144.16
8
144.32
7.5
144.8
7.8
144.72
6.6
147.52
7.2
146.24
7.8
144.96
6.8
146.8
1 US oz = 29.57 ml
Setting Time
hrs : min
Initial
Final
8:32
10:25
9:20
11:00
5:48
7:20
5:31
7:10
7:16
9:09
7:28
9:29
5:23
7:06
5:25
7:15
5:59
7:30
5:37
7:20
4:51
6:12
5:17
6:47
11:16
13:42
11:06
14:07
6:07
8:24
6:49
8:42
11:42
14:41
10:11
13:35
5:25
7:20
5:34
7:24
7:27
9:53
7:43
10:05
5:25
7:20
5:34
7:24
1lbs=0.45 Kg
Workability
The slump was measured upon discharging of the concrete mix and 12 minutes afterwards. The
amount of plasticizers varied depending on the workability of the mix and the ability to get the
desired 3.5 in. slump. Figure 1 shows the slump versus the total amount of plasticizers added for
concrete mixes batched with natural and combined sand.
Effect of Limestone and IPA, and IR For same material proportions, most concrete mixes
made with Cem>5% required less amount of admixtures to achieve a slump equivalent to mixes
made with Cem<5%. Figure 1, showing mixes batched with natural sand, indicates that the
mixes made with Cem>5% gave slightly higher slump, except for Mix 4R which required more
admixture to retain a slump equivalent to Mix 3R. The same figure, showing mixes batched with
combined sand, indicates inconsistent variation between the slump and admixture dosage for
mixes with Cem<5% and Cem>5%.
Effect of Fly Ash or Slag The use of slag or fly ash affected the workability of concrete as
shown in Figure 1. Concrete mixes batched with fly ash had 0.02 w/cm less than concrete mixes
batched with slag. Moreover, mixes with fly ash required fewer admixtures to maintain the
desired slump in comparison to mixes batched with slag. The improved workability of using fly
ash in comparison with slag is attributed to their different physical characteristics (specific
surface area and surface texture). The specific surface area for fly ash is typically lower than
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Ibrahim, Issa, Al-Obaidi, Huang,, Dahhan, an
nd Lopez
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
8
slag, and
d the surface texture for fly
f ash is sph
herical in shaape in compparison with slag, which has
rough, an
ngular-shapeed grains (6).
Effect off Fine Aggreegate Sourcce Combined
d sand requirred a high doosage of highh-range wateer
reducer and
a air entraiining agent to
t maintain workability.
w
Consequenttly, the w/cm
m ratio increeased
from 0.42
2 to 0.44 forr all mixes made
m
with slaag and batchhed with com
mbined sand.. On the otheer
hand, mix
xes made wiith fly ash an
nd natural saand experiennced higher sslump than ddesired and tthe
w/cm ratio was, thereefore, reduceed from 0.42
2 to 0.40.
Figurre 1. Total admixture
a
dosage
d
vs. sllump for con
ncrete mixees.
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Ibrahim, Issa, Al-Obaidi, Huang, Dahhan, and Lopez
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
9
Initial and Final Setting Times of Concrete
The setting time were measured in accordance to ASTM C403 (Time of Setting of Concrete
Mixtures by Penetration). Initial and final setting results indicated ±5% difference for most
concrete mixes having the same mix proportioning and cement source with Cem<5% or
Cem>5%. However, Cem2 mixes with combined sand and fly ash showed a decrease in the
initial set by 13% and final set by 8% for Mix 18 (Cem2>5%) with respect to Mix 17
(Cem2<5%).
Effect of Limestone and IPA, and IR The setting time results for the 24 mixes indicated that
the initial and final set times were slightly higher for concrete mixes with Cem>5% than concrete
mixes with Cem<5%, knowing that both mixes had the same mix proportions. Table 4 shows the
average setting time of different mix combinations and the difference in the setting time between
mixes with Cem<5% and Cem>5%. Table 4 also compares using fly ash vs. slag and natural
sand vs. combined sand. Most concrete mixes made with Cem>5% experienced slight increase in
initial and final setting times. This increase is attributed to a slowdown in the hydration process
between cement and water because of the addition of more limestone and IPA, and/or IR. These
materials are considered inert and had negligible effect on the chemical reaction of cement paste.
Effect of Fly Ash or Slag The addition of fly ash or slag to concrete mixes showed a significant
difference in setting times. Fly ash prolonged initial and final set times in comparison with slag.
As shown in Table 4, the average time needed to reach the initial and final set times for concrete
mixes batched with fly ash and natural sand was, respectively, 37% and 31% longer than the set
times for concrete mixes batched with slag and natural sand. In addition, the average time needed
to reach the initial and final set times for concrete mixes batched with fly ash and combined sand
was, respectively, 70% and 63% longer than the set times for mixes batched with slag and
combined sand.
Effect of Fine Aggregate Source Natural sand resulted in quicker set time in concrete in
comparison with combined sand. The initial and final set times for mixes made with Cem1 were
significantly longer in the mixes batched with combined sand (Mix 13–Mix 16) than mixes
batched with natural sand (Mix 1–Mix 4). In addition, the performance of mixes made with
Cem2 and Cem3 was similar to Cem1 mixes. As shown in Table 4, the average time needed to
reach the initial and final set for concrete mixes batched with fly ash and combined sand was,
respectively, 34% and 39% higher than the set times for concrete mixes batched with fly ash and
natural sand. Moreover, the average time needed to reach the initial and final set times for
concrete mixes batched with slag and combined sand was, respectively, 8% and 11% higher than
the set times for concrete mixes batched with slag and natural sand.
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Ibrahim, Issa, Al-Obaidi, Huang, Dahhan, and Lopez
320
TABLE 4 Avg Setting Times for Different Mix Combinations and their Difference in %
Average Set
Times, hrs:min
Initial
7:15
7:28
5:20
5:24
10:08
(9:21)
9:40
(9:24)
5:39
5:59
Final
9:01
9:16
6:52
7:04
12:45
(11:47)
12:35
(12:06)
7:41
7:50
Difference in the Average Set Time, %
Cem>5% vs.
Fly Ash vs.
CS vs. NS
Cem<5%
Slag
Initial
Final
Initial Final Initial Final
with Fly Ash
2.9
2.8
37.1
31.2
34.4
38.6
1.1
2.7
F.A.
Cement
SCM
Combined Sand Natural
(CS)
Sand (NS)
Mix Combination
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
10
Cem<5%
Cem>5%
Cem<5%
Cem>5%
Fly
Ash
Note:
Note:
For average of Set Time results for Mixes with combined sand and Fly Ash excluding Mix 17 and Mix 18
SCM: supplementary cementitious material (fly ash or slag)
Cem<5%
Cem>5%
Cem<5%
Cem>5%
Slag
Fly
Ash
Slag
-4.7
-1.3
(0.5)
(2.6)
5.9
1.9
with Slag
70.2
63.3
8.2
11.3
Hardened Strength Properties
Figure 2 and Figure 3 show plots for the compressive and flexural strength results for concrete
mixes batched with natural and combined sand.
The results are the average of three concrete cylinders for compression and two beams for
flexural strength. The compressive strength properties for the cement sources per ASTM C109
are presented in Table 1. The table shows that the strength results are slightly higher for
Cem>5% in comparison to Cem<5%, except for Cem3 which shows similar strength.
Compressive strength
Effect of Limestone and IPA, and IR For the same cement source and mix proportioning, the
compressive strength results for concrete mixes batched with natural sand showed that most
mixes with Cem>5% experienced slightly lower compressive strength at early curing age in
comparison with mixes with Cem<5%. However, most mixes with Cem>5% demonstrated better
strength gain over a 56 day curing period compared with Cem<5% mixes.
Figure 2, showing mixes batched with natural sand (Mix 1–Mix 12), indicates that the 3 day
compressive strength for mixes made with Cem2 and Cem3>5% was less than the compressive
strength of mixes made with Cem2 and Cem3<5%, respectively. However, the 56 day
compressive strength test results varied for each concrete mix. Mixes made with Cem1 (Mix 1–
Mix 4) was the only to yield better strength and strength gain at all ages for mixes made with
Cem1>5% in comparison with mixes made with Cem1<5% and having same mix proportion. In
contrast, the compressive strength for mixes made with Cem2>5% was less at all ages than the
strength for mixes made with Cem2<5% and having same mix proportion. However, the mixes
made with Cem2>5% demonstrated a slight strength gain compared with mixes made with
Cem2<5% at all ages.
As shown in Figure 2, the compressive strength of concrete mixes batched with combined sand
(Mix 13–Mix 24) showed similar trends in terms of strength gain to concrete mixes batched with
natural sand. For mixes made with Cem1, Mix 13 (Cem1<5%_fly ash) demonstrated better 3 day
compressive strength and equivalent 56 day strength compared with Mix 14 (Cem1>5%_fly
ash). Mix 15 (Cem1<5%_slag) demonstrated lower compressive strength than Mix 16
(Cem1>5%_slag) at all ages except at 56 day. Similarly, mixes with Cem3>5% resulted in
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Ibrahim, Issa, Al-Obaidi, Huang,, Dahhan, an
nd Lopez
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
11
higher co
ompressive strength
s
and strength gaiin at all agess in comparisson with mixxes with
Cem3<5%
%, except fo
or Mix 24 (C
Cem3>5%_sllag) which ggave lower 3 day compreessive strenggth
than Mix
x 23 (Cem3<
<5%_slag). In
n contrast, mixes
m
made w
with Cem2>
>5% resultedd in lower
compresssive strength
h at all ages than
t
mixes with
w Cem2<55% having tthe same mixx proportionns.
The Cem
m2 effect on concrete
c
is supported
s
by
y (7) who stuudied the efffect of addingg IR to cemeent
on the strrength of con
ncrete and observed thatt higher IR ccontents resuulted in loweering the
compresssive strength
h in concretee.
This imp
plies that con
ncrete mixes made with Cem>5%
C
exxperienced sllightly lowerr strength at
early curring age (3–7
7 day) and beetter strength
h gain at lonng-term curinng age (28–556 day) in
comparisson with Cem
m<5% havin
ng the same cement
c
sourrce and mix pproportions. The strengtth
increase is also affected by the co
ompressive strength
s
propperties of ceement per AS
STM C109, as
shown in
n Table 1.
C
e strength reesults for th
he twenty-foour concretee mixes.
Figure 2. Compressive
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Ibrahim, Issa, Al-Obaidi, Huang, Dahhan, and Lopez
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
12
Effect of Fly Ash or Slag When slag was compared with fly ash for the same cement source and
fine aggregate source, it was observed that the majority of concrete mixes batched with slag had
better strength and strength gain than mixes batched with fly ash. Figure 2 show that, for the
same cement source and fine aggregate type, concrete mixes made with slag gave better 56 day
compressive strength than the mixes made with fly ash, except for mixes made with Cem3 and
batched with combined sand (Mix 21–Mix 24); those mixes showed lower strength at all ages
and lower strength development compared with the mixes made with fly ash. This strength drop
was also affected by the higher w/cm ratio used in mixes made with slag and combined sand
(0.44) compared with the w/cm ratio used in the mixes made with fly ash and combined sand
(0.42).
Effect of Fine Aggregate Source The source of fine aggregate used did not show significant
effect on the compressive strength. Because of fresh air content and w/cm ratio variations
between concrete mixes batched with natural and combined sand, it was hard to observe which
type of fine aggregate had better effect on the compressive strength and strength gain.
Flexural strength
Effect of Limestone and IPA, and IR For the same cement source and mix proportioning, the
flexural strength for the twenty-four concrete mixes showed no favorable performance for any
concrete mix with either Cem>5% or Cem<5%. As shown in Figure 3, for the same mix
proportion, concrete mixes made with Cem1R, Cem2, Cem3, and Cem3R and batched with
natural sand showed inconsistent variation in the flexural strength with Cem<5% and Cem>5%.
Similar performance was observed for concrete mixes batched with combined sand. This implied
that the use of limestone and IPA in concrete did not cause any change in the flexural strength.
Effect of Fly Ash or Slag When slag was compared with fly ash for the same cement source and
fine aggregate type, it was observed that the majority of concrete mixes batched with slag had
better flexural strength gain than the mixes batched with fly ash. For the same cement source,
concrete mixes batched with slag gave better 28 and 56 day flexural strength than mixes batched
with fly ash.
Effect of Fine Aggregate Source For the same cementitious combination, most concrete mixes
batched with combined sand had better flexural strength than the mixes batched with natural
sand from 3 to 14 days and lower flexural strength at 28 and 56 day. However, mixes made with
Cem3, showed favorable performances for concrete mixes batched with natural sand (Mix 9–
Mix 12) at all ages than combined sand (Mix 21–Mix 24).
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Ibrahim, Issa, Al-Obaidi, Huang,, Dahhan, an
nd Lopez
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
13
Figure 3.. Flexural sttrength resu
ults for the ttwenty-fourr concrete m
mixes.
Durabiliity Properties of Hardeened Concreete
Table 5 reports
r
the water
w
permeaability (DIN 1048), RCP
PT (ASTM C
C1202) resultts at 56, 1800, and
360 dayss. Areas that are left blan
nk are yet to be tested.
Effect off Limestone and
a IPA, and
d IR
The wateer permeability (DIN 104
48) results fo
or concrete m
mixes batcheed with natuural sand (Miix 1–
Mix 12) indicate insiignificant vaariation betw
ween mixes w
with the samee cement souurce. For
example,, for Cem1 mixes
m
and naatural sand (M
Mix 1–Mix 44), the meassured permeaability depthhs of
Mix 1 (C
Cem1<5%_flly ash) were higher than those of Miix 2 (Cem1>
>5% _fly ashh) at 56 days but
lower at 180 days; whereas,
w
the depth
d
of perm
meability in Mix 3 (Cem
m1<5%_slagg) prisms was
lower thaan that in Miix 4 (Cem1>
>5%_slag) att 56 days. Foor Cem3 mixxes, the perm
meability deppth
for Mix 9 (Cem3<5%
%_fly ash) was
w higher at 56 days andd lower at 3660 days thann Mix 10
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Ibrahim, Issa, Al-Obaidi, Huang, Dahhan, and Lopez
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
(Cem3>5%_fly ash). This inconsistency is also apparent in the permeability results for concrete
mixes batched with combined sand (Mix 13–Mix 24) at 56 and 180 days for a
The RCPT results shown in Table 5, which slightly contradict with DIN 1048 results,
indicate that most concrete mixes made with Cem>5% had slightly higher rapid chloride
coulomb charge compared with concrete mixes made with Cem<5%. First, for concrete mixes
batched with natural sand (Mix 1–Mix 12), the RCPT results for mixes made with Cem>5%
were greater or equivalent to those made with Cem<5% at 56 and 180 days. For mixes batched
with combined sand, all concrete mixes made with Cem>5% had slightly higher charge than
those made with Cem<5% at 180 days but varied at 56 days.
TABLE 5 Water Permeability (DIN 1048) and RCPT Results
Mixes batched with Combined Sand
Mixes batched with Natural Sand
Mix
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Note
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
14
Mix Design
DIN
1048,
mm
56 Days
ASTM C1202 (RCPT)
Coulombs
Chloride ion
Penetrability
DIN
1048,
mm
Cem1<5%_F
29.0
1615
Low
17.3
Cem1>5%_F
27.7
1742
Low
19.7
Cem1<5%_S
26.0
1315
Low
18.3
Cem1>5%_S
29.3
1682
Low
18.3
Cem2<5%_F
27.7
1184
Low
20.7
Cem2>5%_F
26.3
1778
Low
22.0
Cem2<5%_S
25.3
1077
Low
20.5
Cem2>5%_S
27.0
1225
Low
18.5
Cem3<5%_F
32.8
1879
Low
26.5
Cem3>5%_F
29.1
2529
Moderate
32.8
Cem3<5%_S
32.3
1231
Low
28.6
Cem3>5%_S
32.3
1339
Low
26.5
Cem1<5%_F
33.7
2546
Moderate
25.3
Cem1>5%_F
30.0
2128
Moderate
29.3
Cem1<5%_S
21.0
1229
Low
21.0
Cem1>5%_S
24.7
1040
Low
26.0
Cem2<5%_F
21.5
3558
Moderate
17.3
Cem2>5%_F
33.3
3801
Moderate
20.3
Cem2<5%_S
24.3
1329
Low
18.7
Cem2>5%_S
37.3
978
Very Low
20.7
Cem3<5%_F
35.0
1396
Low
30.0
Cem3>5%_F
28.0
2144
Moderate
23.3
Cem3<5%_S
35.0
964
Very Low
32.3
Cem3>5%_S
35.0
1061
Low
38.0
Cem1<5%_F: Concrete mix made with Cem1<5% and fly ash
Cem2>5%_S: Concrete mix made with Cem2>5% and slag
180 Days
ASTM C1202 (RCPT)
Coulombs
Chloride ion
Penetrability
1060
1060
925
903
558
1132
790
955
445
635
608
585
882
994
688
897
1853
1936
1020
1040
678
717
701
735
Low
Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
DIN
1048,
mm
360 Days
ASTM C1202 (RCPT)
Coulombs
Chloride ion
Penetrability
522
711
585
512
495
512
479
523
611
607
576
708
662
641
367
365
495
504
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
19.7
22.3
22.5
17.7
21.3
19.3
15.7
23
24.7
20.2
19.7
17.7
21
16.2
19.7
30.2
22.7
22.3
27.7
Effect of Fly Ash or Slag
Moreover, the results did not show any significant variation or consistent trend in the water
permeability depth between mixes with the same cement source, but blended with fly ash or slag.
For instance, for Cem3 and natural sand mixes, Mixes 9 and 10, which were blended with fly
ash, gave very close results to Mixes 11 and 12, which were blended with slag, at all ages. This
trend was also observed with concrete mixes batched with combined sand (Mix 13–Mix 24)
In contrary, the effect of slag on concrete mixes exceeded the effect of fly ash on
reducing the coulombs charge. For mixes batched with natural sand, the charge readings for
concrete mixes made with slag were lower than most mixes made with fly ash at 56 and 180
days. Similarly, concrete mixes batched with combined sand showed the same trend at 56 and
180 days for mixes made with slag compared with mixes made with fly ash.
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Ibrahim, Issa, Al-Obaidi, Huang, Dahhan, and Lopez
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
15
Effect of Fine Aggregate Sources
Concrete resistance to water penetration per DIN 1048 demonstrated insignificant variation
between concrete mixes batched natural and combined sand at all ages. As shown in Table 5, for
concrete mixes made with same cement source and cementitious combination, but batched with
natural or combined sand, most concrete mixes made with Cem1 and Cem3 showed better results
for natural sand while Cem2 mixes showed a slightly improved performance for mixes batched
with combined sand.
Similarly, the differences in the RCPT results between concrete mixes batched with
natural and combined sand were insignificant at all ages. For mixes made with Cem3, the
majority of RCPT results after 56 days curing for mixes batched with natural sand were greater
than the results for mixes batched with combined sand. However, the majority of RCPT results
after 180 days curing for mixes batched with natural sand were less than the results for mixes
batched with combined sand. Accordingly, RCPT results show that combined sand had a better
effect on the coulombs charge than natural sand at 56 days while the effect of natural sand was
better at 180 days.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The experimental program was established to evaluate the performance of concrete mixes with
cement with more than 5% limestone and IPA, and/or with more than 0.75% IR in cement. Total
of twenty-four concrete mix combinations were conducted using two sources of cement (Cem1
and Cem3), each providing cement with less than or exceeding 5% of limestone and IPA. A third
cement source was produced from Cem1 and fly ash to give Cem2 with 0.75% (Cem2<5%) and
1.5% (Cem2>5%) IR. Also, each cement source was replaced by slag or fly ash with 30%
replacement levels by weight, and was batched with one source of coarse aggregate and two
sources of fine aggregates (natural or combined sand).
Effect of Limestone and IPA, and IR
The results of this study showed that increasing the amount of limestone and IPA in cement in
quantities exceeding 5% by weight, and the increase of IR to 1.5% had negligible effect on the
the strength and durability properties of concrete. The performance of concrete mixes with
Cem>5% is summarized as follows:
 Improved workability in concrete but slightly prolonged its initial and final setting
times
 Had comparable compressive and flexural strength properties to concrete mixes with
Cem<5%
 The water permeability and RCPT properties were more or less the same as mixes
with Cem<5%
Effect of Fly Ash and Slag
The effect of fly ash and slag replacements is summarized as follows:
 fly ash improved the workability of concrete mixes, but extended their initial and
final setting periods
 A comparison of the strength properties of the 24 concrete mix combinations showed
better compressive and flexure strength for mixes with slag compared with mixes
with fly ash
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Ibrahim, Issa, Al-Obaidi, Huang, Dahhan, and Lopez
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531

16
The water permeability and RCPT properties did not show any notable differences
between the use fly ash or slag
Effect of Fine Aggregate Source
The effect of fine aggregate sources was significantly different in the fresh and hardened
properties of concrete. Following is a summary of the results of the effect of fine aggregate
source:
 Concrete mixes batched with natural sand required much less admixture dosage for
workability and reached the initial and final sets earlier than mixes batched with
combined sand
 No notable differences were observed in the strength between concrete mixes batched
with natural or combined sand
 The permeability and rapid chloride penetration showed insignificant variation
between concrete mixes batched with natural and combined sand
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This publication is based on the results of ICT-R27-112-Effect of Portland Cement (Current
ASTM C150) with Limestone and Process Addition (ASTM C465) on the Performance of
Concrete for Pavement and Bridge Decks. ICT-R27-112 is conducted in cooperation with the
Illinois Center for Transportation (ICT) and IDOT. Thanks are extended to IDOT for providing
the financial support. Thanks are also given to former UIC graduate students Hossein Fazel and
Ammin Mehreioskouei. Extended thanks also to Ozinga, MS Romeoville, and Bluff City
material for procuring the aggregate materials.
REFERENCES
1. Marceau, M.L., M.A. Nisbet, and M.G. VanGeem. Life Cycle Inventory of Portland Cement
Manufacture. SN2095b. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, 2006.
2. Tsivilis, S., E. Chaniotakis, E. Badogiannis, G. Pahoulas, and A. Ilias. “A study on the
parameters affecting the properties of Portland limestone cements.” Cement and Concrete
Composites, Vol. 21, Issue 2, 1999a, pp. 107-116
3. Thomas, M.D.A., K. Cail, B. Blair, A. Delagrave, and L. Barcelo. Equivalent Performance
with Half the Clinker Content using PLC and SCMs. 2010 Concrete Sustainability
Conference, NRMCA, Arizona, 2010a.
4. Thomas, M.D.A., R.D. Hooton, K. Cail, B.A. Smith, J. de Wal, and K.G. Kazanis. Field
Trials of Concretes Produced with Portland Limestone Cement. Concrete International,
January 2010b, pp. 35-41.
5. Hooton, D., A. Ramezanianpour, and U. Schutz. Decreasing the Clinker Component in
Cementing Materials: Performance of Portland-Limestone Cements in Concrete in
Combination with SCMs. 2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference, NRMCA, Arizona,
2010.
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Ibrahim, Issa, Al-Obaidi, Huang, Dahhan, and Lopez
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
17
6. Kosmatka, S.H., and M.L. Wilson. Design and Control of Concrete Mixes. EB001, 15th
edition, Portland Cement Association, Illinois, 2011.
7. Kiattikomol, K., C. Jaturapitakkul, and J. Tangpagasit. Effect of insoluble residue on
properties of Portland cement. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 30, 2000, pp. 12091214.
8. Tsivilis, S., G. Batis, E. Chaniotakis, Gr. Grigoriadis and D. Theodossis. Properties and
behavior of limestone cement concrete and mortar.” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 30,
Issue 10, 2000, pp. 1679-1683.
9. Ezziane, K., E.H. Kadri, A. Hallal, and R. Duval. Effect of Mineral Additives on the Setting
of Blended Cement by the Maturity Method. Materials and Structures, Vol. 43, 2010, pp.
393-401.
10. Hawkins, P, Tennis, P.D. and R.J. Detwiler. The use of limestone in portland cement: A
state-of-the-art review. EB227, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, 2003.
11. Tennis, P. D., M.D.A. Thomas, and W.J. Weiss. State-of-the-Art Report on Use of Limestone
in Cements at Levels of up to 15%. SN3148, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois,
2011.
12. Hooton, M.D., M. Nokken, and M.D.A. Thomas. Portland-Limestone Cement: State-of theArt Report and Gap Analysis for CSA A3000. SN3053, Cement Association of Canada, 2007.
13. Tsivilis, S., E. Chaniotakis, G. Batis, C. Meletiou, V. Kasselouri, G. Kakali, A. Sakellariou,
G. Pavlakis, and C. Psimadas. “The effect of clinker and limestone quality on the gas
permeability, water absorption and pore structure of limestone cement concrete. Cement and
Concrete Composites, Vol. 21, Issue 2, 1999b, pp. 139-146
14. Issa, M., A.A. Khalil, S. Islam, and P.D. Krauss, Mechanical Properties and Durability of
High Performance Concrete for Bridge Decks. Precast/Prestress Concrete Institute Journal, ,
Vol. 53, No. 4, July-August 2008, pp.108-130.
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.