journal article·2019-05

Concrete application of clinker-efficient cements

Sebastian Palm, Christoph Müller, Tilo Proske, Moien Rezvani, Carl-Alexander Graubner

Advances in Cement Research· Volume 31· Issue 5
Publisher page

Abstract

The performance of clinker-efficient cements with granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) and limestone beyond the limits of the current DIN EN 197-1 was examined. Fresh, mechanical and durability properties of concretes made with laboratory and plant cements were determined. It can be stated that cements with a clinker content of about 50 wt% using GGBS and a limestone content of up to 20 wt% are suitable, in principle, for producing structural concretes. These cements gave fresh concrete properties as used in practice, good mechanical properties and, with the exception of the freeze–thaw resistance, admissible durability properties within the framework of the currently valid description deemed to satisfy rules in Germany. Concretes made with cements outside the currently envisaged extension of DIN EN 197-1 with a clinker content of about 20 to 35 wt% and a limestone content of up to 50 wt% can also exhibit admissible durability properties, if exacting concrete technology measures (low water–cement ratio and corresponding addition levels of admixtures) are applied in the concrete production.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Concrete and Cement Materials Research · Magnesium Oxide Properties and Applications · Recycling and utilization of industrial and municipal waste in materials production

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

VDZ gGmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany (corresponding author: )

VDZ gGmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany

Technische Universität Darmstadt, Institut für Massivbau, Darmstadt, Germany

References (23)

Show source-provided references
1. Adu-Amankwah S · Advances in Cement Research · 2017 · 30 · 38710.1680/jadcr.17.00138 ↗
2. BAW (Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau) · 2012
3. BAW · 2012
4. Brodersen HA · 2000 · 159
5. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.04.00110.1016/j.resconrec.2010.04.001 ↗
6. EFCA (European Federation of Concrete Admixture Associations) · 2006
7. Feldrappe V · FEhS Report · 2013 · 20 · 7
8. Müller C · Beton · 2009 · 59 · 469
9. Müller C · Beton · 2009 · 59 · 531
10. Nazari A · 2016
11. Nemuth S · 2007
12. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.00910.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.009 ↗
13. PE Europe GmbH · 2003
14. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2013.04.01110.1016/j.cemconres.2013.04.011 ↗
15. 10.1002/best.20140004010.1002/best.201400040 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.03.01910.1016/j.cemconres.2011.03.019 ↗
17. Scrivener K · 2016
18. Setzer MJ · 2000
19. 10.1002/best.20020162010.1002/best.200201620 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2016.06.00610.1016/j.cemconres.2016.06.006 ↗
21. USGS (U. S. Geological Survey) · 2013
22. VDZ e.V. (Verein Deutscher Zementwerke e.V.) · 2012
23. VDZ e.V. · 2016