01 Low Clinker Ternary Cements Performance and Standardisation Michel Delort

LOW – CLINKER TERNARY CEMENTS

Performance and Standardization

Michel DELORT Association Technique de l’Industrie des Liants Hydrauliques

France

7th International VDZ Congress 2013 25 – 27 Septembre 2013

Low-clinker ternary cements Performance and standardization

Content

1. Historical background and objective

2. The pre-normative study 2.1 Content 2.2 Performance according to cement properties 2.3 Performance according to concrete properties 2.4 Performance according to concrete durability 2.5 Final remarks

3. Standardization 3.1 Composition limits 3.2 Classification

4. Conclusion


Low-clinker ternary cements Historical background and objective (1)

• Proposal from IBN (Belgium) to CEN/TC 51 – Dresden 2006

To standardize a «new type» of cement made from - Portland cement clinker: 30% to 64% - Blastfurnace slag: 30% to 50% - Limestone: 6% to 20%

Declared objective: To define and characterize a cement - having a low contribution to CO2 emissions - made from well-tried constituents and traditional manufacturing method - having a good workability - suitable for producing structural concrete of ordinary performance



• Acceptance of the IBN proposal by CEN/TC 51 under the following conditions [Resolution 445 (Dresden)]:

- To investigate the possible standardization of the cement

- To carry out a pre-normative study covering both performance and durability (based on test methods developed by CEN/TC 51 - TC 104/WG 12)



• Presentation of the first results to CEN/TC 51 - Montreux 2009

Positive evaluation to go further

Mandate to TC 51/WG 6 extended to cement compositions comprising Portland cement clinker (K), fly ash (V) or pozzolana (P) and limestone (L/LL) [Resolution 517 (Montreux)]

Further pre-normative research not within the remit of CEN/TC 51


Low-clinker ternary cements The pre-normative study (1)

• Content: - Industrial and/or laboratory production of 13 different cement

compositions (K-S-L/LL) and (K-V/P-L/LL) – 17 cements - Test for conformity to mechanical, physical and chemical

requirements of EN 197-1 - Characterization of two concrete compositions

Concrete 1 Concrete 2 Strength class (N/mm2) C 20/25 C 35/45 Slump (mm) 110 – 130 70 – 90 Cement content (kg/m3) 300 340 W/C ratio 0,60 0,45

- Test of ternary cement concretes [carbonation, chloride diffusion, freeze-thaw (internal damage and scaling with de-icing agent), sulfate resistance] against common cement concretes from CEM I, CEM II/B-M (S-L), CEM II/B-LL and CEM III/B


K

S

L/LL

L/LL

S

K

90

80

70

60

50

S

40

30

20

10


COMPOSITION RANGE OF EXISTING COMMON CEMENTS Incorporating Portland cement clinker (K), blastfurnace slag (S) and limestone (L/LL)

and ternary compositions tested for CEN / TC51 (*)

(*) tests carried out by CRIC (Belgium) and Lafarge (France)

K

S

L/LL

L/LL

V/P

K

90

80

70

60

50

S

40

30

20

10


COMPOSITION RANGE OF EXISTING COMMON CEMENTS Incorporating Portland clinker (K), fly ash (V) or pozzolana (P) and limestone (L/LL)

and ternary compositions tested for CEN / TC51 (**)

(**) tests carried out by Lafarge (France)


• Performance according to cement properties

For physical properties, all results lie in the range of those obtained with tested common cements

For compressive strength: - 11 cements could be classified 32,5 or higher - 6 cements with a clinker content < 50% have failed to reach an adequate performance



• Performance according to concrete physical and

mechanical properties

For shrinkage and creep, no significant differences between CEM I concretes and ternary cement concretes

For compressive strength, most cements allow to produce a C25/30 (or higher) concrete with 300 kg/m3 and a C35/45 (or higher) concrete with 340 kg/m3

Two 32,5 low-clinker ternary cement (50% K and 30% L) give poor results: C16/20 with 300 kg/m3 and C25/30 with 340 kg/m3



• Performance according to concrete durability

Carbonation depth on concrete 1 (300 kg/m3) (EN 13295 - 56 days) - around 5 mm for CEM I and CEM II/B-M (S-LL) - around 10 mm or more when limestone > 25% (including CEM II/B-LL)

Chloride diffusion on concrete 2 (340 kg/m3) (NT Build 443) - low-clinker ternary cements provide results equivalent or better

than tested common cements - one exception for a cement containing 50% clinker, 20% pozzolana and 30% limestone




Freeze-thaw - Internal damage on concrete 2 (340 kg/m3) (CEN/TR 15177)

- only CEM I concretes perform well - unexplained differences between CRIC and Lafarge on three ternary compositions - low-clinker ternary cements perform like CEM II and CEM III

Freeze-thaw - Scaling on concrete 2 (340 kg/m3) (CEN/TS 12390-9 - Slab test with adaptations)

- unexplained differences between CRIC and Lafarge - poor performance of low-clinker ternary cements: one to several

kg/m2 of scaled material




Sulfate resistance (CUR 48) - all low-clinker ternary cements perform better than CEM I and

CEM II, some in the range of CEM III/B - blastfurnace slag seems to better contribute than fly ash and

pozzolana



• Final remarks

Acceptable performance of low-clinker ternary cements in the range of CEM II/B or CEM III when clinker content > 30% and limestone content < 25%

Considering that a standard should comprise safety margin composition limits could be:

- for clinker ≥ 35% - for limestone ≤ 20%


Low-clinker ternary cements Standardization

• Based on the positive result of the pre-normative study, CEN/TC 51 decided to develop provisions, including composition limits and classification, for specifying low-clinker ternary cements within EN 197-1 or otherwise [Resolution 8/2012 (Athens)]

* Source: CEMBUREAU, the European Cement Association


POSSIBLE COMPOSITION LIMITS FOR LOW CLINKER TERNARY CEMENTS

Incorporating Portland clinker (K), blasfurnace slag (S) and limestone (L/LL)


L/LL

S

K

90

80

70

60

50

S

CEM III/C

CEM III/B

CEM III/A

CEM II/A-S

CEM II/B-S

CEM II/A-LL

CEM II/B-LL

CEM II/A-M (S-LL) CEM II/B-M (S-LL)

CEM II/C-M (S-LL)

CEM VI (S-LL)

L/LL K

90

80

70

60

50

S

V/P

POSSIBLE COMPOSITION LIMITS FOR LOW CLINKER TERNARY CEMENTS

Incorporating Portland clinker (K), fly ash (V) or pozzolana (P) and limestone (L/LL)


CEM II/C-M (V or P-LL)

CEM II/A-V or P

CEM II/B-V or P

CEM II/A-LL CEM II/B-LL

CEM II/A-M (V or P-LL)

CEM II/B-M (V or P-LL)

CEM IV/B

Low-clinker ternary cements A late additional request

• CEN/TC 51 could consider a late request for standardizing

compositions based on Portland cement clinker (K), blastfurnace slag (S) and fly ash (V)

because: - constituents are the most traditional ones - CEM II/B-M (S-V) and CEM V/A are known to perform well

but following presentation of positive results of a testing programme equivalent to the pre-normative study



Low-clinker ternary cements Conclusion

Fitness for use of given low-clinker ternary cements has been demonstrated

Low clinker ternary cements are worth of being standardized and can be incorporated in EN 197-1, the European standard on common cements

The procedure set-up by CEN/TC 51 could be applied to further innovative products


Low-clinker ternary cements Standard and innovation

• A CEN Technical report under development

in CEN/TC 51 aims to describe the procedures for further applications i.e.

Further multi-constituent cements from

well-tried constituents Cements incorporating new constituents

and for which hardening is governed by CSH phases

Cements for which hardening could result from other phases than CSH


Thank you for your attention

Low-clinker ternary cements Performance and standardization


01 Low Clinker Ternary Cements Performance and Standardisation Michel Delort

Documents

portland cement clinker

s lll lll s

cement properties

th international vdz

s lll lll vp

ternary compositions

different cement compositions

cement content kgm3