Performance of Portland Limestone Cements: Cements Designed to Be More Sustainable That Include up to 15% Limestone Addition

Abstract

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis work was conducted in the Charles Pankow Concrete Materials Laboratory at Purdue University. As such, the authors gratefully acknowledge the support which has made this laboratory and its operation possible.The authors would like to thank Buzzi Unicem, Holcim, Lafarge, Lehigh Hanson, and Omya for graciously providing the cementitious materials for this research. JOINT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PROGRAMThe Joint Transportation Research Program serves as a vehicle for INDOT collaboration with higher education institutions and industry in Indiana to facilitate innovation that results in continuous improvement in the planning, design, construction, operation, management and economic efficiency of the Indiana transportation infrastructure. https://engineering.purdue.edu/JTRP/index_html Published reports of the Joint Transportation Research Program are available at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jtrp/ NOTICEThe contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views and policies of the Indiana Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. The report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. AbstractIn 2009, ASTM and AASHTO permitted the use of up to 5% interground limestone in ordinary portland cement (OPC) as a part of ASTM C150/AASHTO M85. When this project was initiated a new proposal was being discussed that would enable up to 15% interground limestone to be considered in ASTM C595/AASHTO M234 cement. This project was initiated to provide rapid feedback to INDOT for use in discussions regarding these specifications (this has become ASTM C595/AASHTO M234). PLC is designed to enable more sustainable construction which may significantly reduce the CO2 that is embodied in the built infrastructure while extending the life of cement quarries. The physical and chemical properties of the cementitious materials used in this study were examined. PLC is typically a finer cement (10 to 30% Blaine fineness) with a reduction in the coarse clinker particles (>20µm) and an increase in fine particles which are primarily limestone. Isothermal calorimetry and chemical shrinkage results imply that these PLC materials have a similar or slight greater reaction and would be able to be used interchangeably with OPC in practice as it relates to the rate of reaction. The PLC mortars exhibited relatively similar activation energies compared to the corresponding OPCs allowing the maturity method to be used by INDOT for both the PLC and OPC systems. The mechanical properties of OPC and PLC were generally similar with the PLC typically having slightly higher early age strengths but similar 28 day strengths. No significant change in drying shrinkage or restrained shrinkage cracking was observed for the PLC when compared with OPC (Barrett et al. 2013 In 2009, ASTM and AASHTO permitted the use of up to 5% interground limestone in ordinary portland ceme...

Controlling aluminate phase hydration for sulfate resistance of Portland–limestone cements

“…on the curve associated with the depletion of sulfates. This is more pronounced in PLC systems (Barrett et al, 2013).…”

Improving the sulfate attack resistance of Portland-Limestone cement through sulfate optimization: A calorimetry-based approach

“…The addition of gypsum to the Type IL cement resulted in a visible secondary peak on the curve associated with the depletion of sulfates. This is more pronounced in PLC systems (Barrett, Sun, & Weiss, 2013). An additional 1% SO3 was found to be the optimum sulfate content.…”

Internal Curing for Concrete Bridge Decks: Integration of a Social Cost Analysis in Evaluation of Long-Term Benefit

“…The reason for this is that HPC-IC has more effective cement hydration because of the internal curing process, and similar concrete strengths can be achieved even with less cement in the concrete mix (25). Also, these costs are similar to those experienced by the Indiana Department of Transportation (26). For each bridge, the initial construction cost is equal to the unit construction cost multiplied by its structural length and depth.…”

“…Table 2 summarizes the durations of partial closure and full closure for protection, patch repair, and replacement processes. For the partial closure case, the duration of the replacement time for the I-35E Bridge was estimated by use of the construction plan for the I-35 Corridor Project (26) and the estimation made by Cusson et al (8). The replacement durations for the Arcade Bridge and the Edgerton Bridge were similarly estimated.…”