Title:
Resistance to Chloride Ingress of Eco-Efficient Concrete Proportioned through Particle Packing Models (PPMs)
Author(s):
M.T. de Grazia, L.F.M. Sanchez, and A. Leemann
Publication:
Symposium Paper
Volume:
362
Issue:
Appears on pages(s):
887-900
Keywords:
limestone fillers (LF), particle packing models (PPM), resistance to chloride ingress, low-carbon concrete
DOI:
10.14359/51742016
Date:
6/18/2024
Abstract:
Using particle packing models (PPMs) in combination with limestone fillers has been shown to be effective in proportioning eco-efficient concrete mixtures with reduced Portland cement content, resulting in suitable performance in fresh and short-term hardened states. However, the decrease in Portland cement and increase in limestone fillers may lower the pH of concrete, raising concerns about durability and long-term performance, potentially leading to increased corrosion of steel reinforcement in the presence of carbonation or chlorides. In this study, the performance of three eco-efficient concrete mixtures with varying cement (250, 200, and 150 kg/m3) and inert filler contents is evaluated against accelerated chloride exposure. The findings highlight the influence of the mixture proportioning and water-to-cement ratio on the resistance to chloride ingress. Ultimately, it is verified that the distance between cement particles is a major contribution towards chloride ingress.
Related References:
1. “Joint statement: Canada’s Cement Industry and the Government of Canada announce a partnership to establish Canada as a global leader in low-carbon cement and to achieve net-zero carbon concrete - Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.” Available at: https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/07730.html. Accessed March 17, 2022.
2. GCCA. “Our path to net zero.” Available at: https://gccassociation.org/concretefuture/ourpath-to-net-zero/. Accessed March 17, 2022.
3. Tikkanen, J., Cwirzen, A., and Penttala, V. 2014. Effects of mineral powders on hydration process and hydration products in normal strength concrete, Construction and Building Materials, 727–14.
4. Oey, T., Kumar, A., Bullard, J. W., et al. 2013. The filler effect: The influence of filler content and surface area on cementitious reaction rates, Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 96(6), 1978–90.
5. Lothenbach, B., Scrivener, K., and Hooton, R. D. 2011. Supplementary cementitious materials, Cement and Concrete Research, 41(12), 217–29.
6. Youness, D., Hosseinpoor, M., Yahia, A., et al. 2021. Flowability characteristics of dry supplementary cementitious materials using Carr measurements and their effect on the rheology of suspensions, Powder Technology, 378124–44.
7. Noël, M., Sanchez, L., and Fathifazl, G. “Recent Advances in Sustainable Concrete for Structural Applications.” Sustainable Construction Materials & Technologies 4. 2016. p. 10.
8. Environment, U. N., Scrivener, K. L., John, V. M., et al. 2018. Eco-efficient cements: Potential economically viable solutions for a low-CO2 cement-based materials industry, Cement and Concrete Research, 114(2–26), .
9. T. de Grazia, M., F. M. Sanchez, L., C. O. Romano, R., et al. 2019. Investigation of the use of continuous particle packing models (PPMs) on the fresh and hardened properties of low-cement concrete (LCC) systems, Construction and Building Materials, 195524–36.
10. Hornain, H., Marchandx, J., Duhots, V., et al. 1995. Diffusion of chloride ions in limestone filler blended cement pastes and mortars, Cement and Concrete Research, 25(8), 1667–78.
11. Lollini, F., Redaelli, E., and Bertolini, L. 2014. Effects of portland cement replacement with limestone on the properties of hardened concrete, Cement and Concrete Composites, 4632–40.
12. Kumar, S., Santhanam, M., Kunar, S., et al. 2003. Particle packing theories and their application in concrete mixture proportioning : A review, The Indian Concrete Journal, 771324–31.
13. Kwan, A. K. H., Chan, K. W., and Wong, V. 2013. A 3-parameter particle packing model incorporating the wedging effect, Powder Technology, 237172–9.
14. Baghaee Moghaddam, T., and Baaj, H. 2018. Application of compressible packing model for optimization of asphalt concrete mix design, Construction and Building Materials, 159530–9.
15. Fennis, S. A. A. M., Walraven, J. C., and den Uijl, J. A. 2013. Compaction-interaction packing model: regarding the effect of fillers in concrete mixture design, Materials and Structures, 46(3), 463–78.
16. Hunger, M., and Brouwers, H. J. H. 2009. Flow analysis of water–powder mixtures: Application to specific surface area and shape factor, Cement and Concrete Composites, 3139–59.
17. Dinger, D., and Funk, J. “Predictive process control of crowded particulate suspensions,” 1st edition, New York, 1994.
18. Fennis, S. A. A. M., and Walraven, J. C. 2012. Using particle packing technology for sustainable concrete mixture design, Heron, 57(2), 73–101.
19. Goltermann, P., Johansen, V., and Palbøl, L. 1997. Packing of Aggregates : An Alternative Tool to Determine the Optimal Aggregate Mix, ACI Materials Journal, (94), 435–42.
20. Mangulkar, M. N., and Jamkar, S. S. 2013. Review of particle packing theories used for concrete mix proportioning, International Journal Of Scientific & Engineering Research, 4(5), 143–8.
21. Mehdipour, I., and Khayat, K. H. 2018. Understanding the role of particle packing characteristics in rheo- physical properties of cementitious suspensions : A literature review, Construction and Building Materials, 161340–53.
22. Mehdipour, I., and Khayat, K. H. 2018. Understanding the role of particle packing characteristics in rheo-physical properties of cementitious suspensions: A literature review, Construction and Building Materials, 161340–53.
23. Stovall, T., de Larrard, F., and Buil, M. 1986. Linear packing density model of grain mixtures, Powder Technology, 48(1), 1–12.
24. De Larrard, F. “Concrete Mixture Proportioning: A Scientific Approach,” London and New York, Scientific Approach, E&FN SPON, 1999, 440 pp.
25. Ali, Z. S., Hosseinpoor, M., and Yahia, A. 2020. New aggregate grading models for lowbinder self-consolidating and semi-self-consolidating concrete (Eco-SCC and Eco-semi-SCC), Construction and Building Materials, 265120314.
26. Esmaeilkhanian, B., Khayat, K. H., and Wallevik, O. H. 2017. Mix design approach for low-powder self-consolidating concrete: Eco-SCC-content optimization and performance, Materials and Structures, 50(124), 18.
27. Wang, Y., Shui, Z., Gao, X., et al. 2019. Understanding the chloride binding and diffusion behaviors of marine concrete based on Portland limestone cement-alumina enriched pozzolans, Construction and Building Materials, 198207–17.
28. Loser, R., Lothenbach, B., Leemann, A., et al. 2010. Chloride resistance of concrete and its binding capacity - Comparison between experimental results and thermodynamic modeling, Cement and Concrete Composites, 32(1), 34–42.
29. Sui, S., Wilson, W., Georget, F., et al. 2019. Quantification methods for chloride binding in Portland cement and limestone systems, Cement and Concrete Research, 12515 30. Bahman-Zadeh, F., Zolfagharnasab, A., Pourebrahimi, M., et al. 2023. Thermodynamic and experimental study on chloride binding of limestone containing concrete in sulfatechloride solution, Journal of Building Engineering, 6617.
31. N.d. Schweizer Ingenieur- und Architektenverein. Concrete structures – Supplementary specifications, Appendix B: chloride resistance, Swiss standard 505, 203.
32. Grazia, M. T. De. “Short and long-term performance of eco-efficient concrete mixtures.” University of Ottawa, 2023.