performance based specifications for concrete · 2019-03-11 · iso 16204 14. validation of...

Performance based specifications for concrete –an approach to design climate friendly concrete structures?

Christoph Müller

Green Transition of Cement and Concrete Production

in Denmark

DTI Taastrup, 28 February 2019

Performance characteristics of concrete

2

▪ Site relevant (robust) fresh concrete

properties

▪ Mechanical properties

(Compressive strength etc.)

▪ Durability performance

Validation of durability performance for concrete

Experience Testing (laboratory)

Description/

deemed-to-satisfy (DTS) rules

Assessment background/

limit values

Calculation

Limit state

Performance based on

▪ EN 206 + NAR

▪ Exposure classes

▪ min c, max w/c

▪ cmin etc.

▪ Test procedures

▪ CEN/TR 16563

▪ European technical

assessment (EAD/ETA)

▪ Models

▪ fib Model Code „Service Life

Design“

▪ ISO 16204

3



Description/



limit values

Calculation

Limit state


▪ EN 206 + NAR


▪ min c, max w/c

▪ cmin etc.

▪ Test procedures

▪ CEN/TR 16563



▪ Models


Design“

▪ ISO 16204

4

Recommended limiting values for concrete in EN 206

Exposure classes

Maximum w/c

Miniumum

strength class

Minimum

cement content kg/m³

XC1 XC2 XC3 XC4XS1

XD1

XS2

XD2

XS3

XD3

Carbonation-induced corrosion

Chloride-induced corrosion

XS = Sea water

XD = Chloride from other

than from sea water

0.65 0.60 0.55 0.500.50

0.55

0.45

0.550.45

C20/25 C25/30 C30/37 C30/37 C30/37C35/45

C30/37C35/45

260 280 280 300 300320

300

340

320

Minimum

air content %- - - - - - -

5


Exposure classes

Maximum w/c

Miniumum

strength class

Minimum


XC1 XC2 XC3 XC4XS1

XD1

XS2

XD2

XS3

XD3


Chloride-induced corrosion

XS = Sea water

XD = Chloride from other

than from sea water

0.65 0.60 0.55 0.500.50

0.55

0.45

0.550.45

C20/25 C25/30 C30/37 C30/37 C30/37C35/45

C30/37C35/45

260 280 280 300 300320

300

340

320

Minimum

air content %- - - - - - -

6

National Application Rules

Cement application in the EU: Examples for XF1

Statemax.

w/ceq

min.

c CEM

I

CEM IICEM III CEM IV CEM V

S L/LL M

kg/m³ A B A B A B A B A B A B

Austria 0.55 300 x x x x (x) x (x) x (x)

Belgium 0.55 300 x x x x x x x x x (x)

Denmark 0.55 150 (x) (x)

France 0.60 280 x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Germany 0.60 280 x x x x ● (x) (x) x x ● (x) (x) (x)

Italy 0.50 320 x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Netherlands 0.55 300 x x x (x) (x) (x) (x) x x (x) (x) (x) (x)

United Kingdom 0.60 280 x x x x x x x (x) (x)

x (x) ●not mentioned use allowed with limitations * use not allowed

* an (x) Indicates that there are qualifications, e.g. types of main constituents

7


Statemax.

w/ceq

min.

c CEM

I


S L/LL M




Denmark 0.55 150 (x) (x)






x (x) ●not mentioned use allowed with limitations * use not allowed

* an (x) Indicates that there are qualifications, e.g. types of main constituents

8


Statemax.

w/ceq

min.

c CEM

I


S L/LL M




Denmark 0.55 150 * (x) (x)






x (x) ●not mentioned use allowed with limitations use not allowed

9

* under severe and very severe conditions (e. g. XF3/XF4) minimum fines content ≥ 375 kg/m3

Well-tried and proven in practice

10


Experience

▪ locally available materials

▪ ambient conditions

▪ local design/building tradition

11


Experience




Performance criteria

▪ Fresh concrete properties

▪ Compressive strength

12


Experience




Performance criteria

▪ Fresh concrete properties


Status-quo (CEN/TC104/SC1 N1040)

▪ No CEN Member Country operates a system where the specification of

carbonation resistance, chloride resistance and freeze-thaw resistance

is only based on tests.

▪ Switzerland has both performance requirements and limiting values.

13



Description/



limit values

Calculation

Limit state


▪ EN 206 + NAR


▪ min c, max w/c

▪ cmin etc.

▪ Test procedures

▪ CEN/TR 16563



▪ Models


Design“

▪ ISO 16204

14



Description/



limit values

Calculation

Limit state


▪ EN 206 + NAR


▪ min c, max w/c

▪ cmin etc.

- New materials without

long term experience

- Special conditions (e.g.

ASR)

▪ Models


Design“

▪ ISO 16204

15

Which properties must be proven?

Application Properties to be checked

Interior components in exposure class XC1 (dry)▪ Suitable (robust) fresh concrete properties

▪ Mechanical properties (Compressive strength etc.)

Exposure class Risk of corrosion/cracking due to carbonation during

the service life

XC1

(indoor air)

Concrete will carbonate rapidly, but the rate of corrosion is

too slow to cause cracking

16

Which properties must be proven?


Interior components in exposure class XC1 (dry)▪ Suitable (robust) fresh concrete properties


Components in exposure class XC3 or exterior

components in exposure class XC4/XF1

▪ Suitable (robust) fresh concrete properties


▪ if proven: „Strength is a proxy for durability“

Exposure class Risk of corrosion/cracking due to carbonation during

the service life

XC1

(indoor air)

Concrete will carbonate rapidly, but the rate of corrosion is

too slow to cause cracking

XC3 More rapid carbonation than in XC4 but a slower rate of

corrosion

XC4 Slower rate of carbonation than in XC3 but a more rapid

rate of corrosion

17

Passive / moderate conditions

Compressive strength „as a proxy“ for carbonation

Source:

Tilo Proske, Moien Rezvani, Sebastian Palm,

Christoph Müller, Carl-Alexander Graubner:

Concretes made of efficient multi-composite

cements with slag and limestone

Cement and Concrete Composites 89 (2018) pp

107-119

Carbonation test acc. to EAD 15001-00-0301

No 15, Method 1:

7d pre-storage

140d 20 °C/65 % r. H.

0.04 % CO2 concentration

0/8 mm aggregate

18

0,0

2,5

5,0

7,5

10,0

12,5

15,0

17,5

20,0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

de

pth

of

ca

rbo

nati

on

in

mm

, 7

d p

re-

sto

rag

e, 1

40

d m

ain

sto

rag

e

compressive strength after pre-storage in MPa

CEM I

CEM II/B-M

CEM II/C-M*

CEM VI & CEM X

CEM III/A

* up to 35 mass-% LL

XC3/XC4

Compressive strength „as a proxy“ for carbonation

Source evaluation background:

• CEN/TR 16563, Annex B (August 2013) and

• EAD 15001-00-0301

Carbonation test acc. to EAD 15001-00-0301

No 15, Method 1:

7d pre-storage

140d 20 °C/65 % r. H.

0.04 % CO2 concentration

0/8 mm aggregate

19

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46

Ka

rbo

na

tis

ieru

ng

sti

efe

na

ch

14

0d

, 7

d

Vo

rla

ge

run

g in

mm

Druckfestigkeit nach 7d in N/mm²

1

2

3

1 CEM (50K,30S,20LL), w/z = 0,502 CEM (35K,30S,35LL), w/z = 0,403 CEM (20K,30S,50LL), w/z = 0,35

Carb

on

ation

de

pth

in

mm

aft

er

14

0 d

ma

in s

tora

ge

an

d 7

d p

re-s

tora

ge

Compressive strength after pre-storage in MPa

Carbonation to some extend a function of strength

Compressive strength „as a proxy“ for freeze-thaw (XF1)

0

5

10

15

20

25

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Druckfestigkeit 28 d in N/mm²

Daten VDZ; CEM I - CEM II

100 % K

20 % LL

25 % LL

30 % LL

30 % LL; 5 % S

Ma

sse

ve

rlu

st n

ach

10

0 F

TW

in

M.-

%

XF1XF1

Data:Source of data:

Christoph Müller, Eberhard Lang: Durability of Portland limestone and

Portland composite cements CEM II-M (S-LL)

beton 55 (2005), Heft 3 S.131-138, Heft 4 S.197-202, Heft 5 S.266-269

Source of XF1 assessment:

Siebel, Eberhard: Freeze-thaw resistance of concrete without and with

de-icer- evaluation with the cube test, Beton 42, 1992

Loss o

f m

ass a

fter

100 F

TW

in M

.-%

Compressive strength after 28d in MPa

20

Exposure

class

Description of the environment

XF1 Moderate water saturation, without de-icer

Freeze-thaw test acc. to EAD 15001-00-0301

No 17, Method 1: Cube test acc. to CEN/TS 12390-9;

Freeze-thaw resistance with moderate water saturation to some extend a function of strength


Exposure classes

Maximum w/c

Miniumum

strength class

Minimum


XC1 XC2 XC3 XC4


0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50

C20/25 C25/30 C30/37 C30/37

260 280 280 300

Minimum

air content %- - - -

21

Freeze/thaw attack with

or without de-icing agents

XF1 XF2 XF3 XF4

0.55 0.55 0.50 0.45

C30/37 C25/30 C30/37 C30/37

300 300 320 340

- 4.0 4.0 4.0

Clinker efficient cements – extension of EN 197 - 1

Under

standardizationThe European cement standard:

K-S-LL cements as example

▪ standard describes cements with well

tried and proven constituents

▪ they provide for robust and durable

concretes

▪ concrete standards are national and set

the framework for application

CEM II/C and CEM II/B-LL cements are at least

fit for use in indoor and normal outdoor concrete

22

Cement content and clinker efficiency in concrete

CO2 intensity of concretes

source: data and evaluation VDZ, strength class distribution BTB

Concrete

strength

class

Marketshare

% Germany

2016

min. in

Exposure

Class

C8/10 1.0 X0

C12/15 6.8 ---

C16/20 1.9 XC1, XC2

C20/25 14.4 XC3

C25/30 39.8XC4, XF1, XF2,

XF3, XA1

C30/37 21.4 XS1, XD1, XF4

C35/45 11.2XS/D 2, 3,

XA 2,3

C45/55 0.6 ---

C50/60 0.3 ---

23

64

% =

32 M

iom

3

Cement content and clinker efficiency in concrete

CO2 intensity of concretes

24source: data and evaluation VDZ

▪ CEM II/B-LL cements and

CEM II/C cements:

– at least indoor and “normal”

outdoor concretes

(approx. 65% of all in-situ

concrete in Germany)

▪ Reduction potential of the CO2

intensity approx. 25%

Einstufung BBQ-Klassen (exemplarisch, Entwurf)Which properties must be proven?

Pictures: Rolf Breitenbücher, https://baustoffingenieurwissenschaft.wordpress.com/


Components in exposure classes XF2/XF3/XF4

XD2/XD3, XS2/XS3, XA2, XA3

▪ Suitable (robust) fresh concrete properties


▪ Durability tests (strength ≠ durability)

25

Einstufung BBQ-Klassen (exemplarisch, Entwurf)Strength ≠ durability: Freeze-thaw with de-icer

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0 20 40 60 80

scalin

g i

n k

g/m

²

concrete compressive strength in N/mm²

linear, R² = 0.02

c = 320 kg/m3

w/c = 0.50

AEA

26

Concrete compressive

strength in MPa

Freeze-thaw test with de-icer acc. to EAD 15001-00-0301 No 18, Method 1: CDF test acc. to CEN/TS 12390-9

Einstufung BBQ-Klassen (exemplarisch, Entwurf)Strength ≠ durability: Freeze-thaw with de-icer

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0 20 40 60 80

scalin

g i

n k

g/m

²


linear, R² = 0.02

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0 50 100 150 200

sc

ali

ng

in

kg

/m²

CVCDF

linear, R² = 0.85

c = 320 kg/m3

w/c = 0.50

AEA

CVCDF =

HD2d × Air ×P57µm− 0,01µm

Ptotal

27


strength in MPa

Freeze-thaw test with de-icer acc. to EAD 15001-00-0301 No 18, Method 1: CDF test acc. to CEN/TS 12390-9

Einstufung BBQ-Klassen (exemplarisch, Entwurf)Strength ≠ durability: Chloride ingress

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80

ch

lori

de

mig

rati

on

co

eff

icie

nt

in

10

-12

m²/

s


exponential,R² = 0.56

c = 320 kg/m3

w/c = 0.50

28


strength in MPa

Resistance to chloride

penetration acc. to EAD

15001-00-0301

No 16, Method 1:

NT BUILD 492

Einstufung BBQ-Klassen (exemplarisch, Entwurf)Strength ≠ durability: Chloride ingress

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20

ch

lori

de m

igra

tio

n c

oeff

icie

nt

in

10

-12

m²/

s

CVCl

potential, R² = 0.71

linear, R² = 0.89

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80

ch

lori

de

mig

rati

on

co

eff

icie

nt

in

10

-12

m²/

s


exponential,R² = 0.56

c = 320 kg/m3

w/c = 0.50

CVCl =HD7d

P57µm− 0,02µm

29


strength in MPa

Under severe conditions (e. g. chloride attack) durability is not a function of strength

but depend e. g. on the pore size distribution

Resistance to chloride

penetration acc. to EAD

15001-00-0301

No 16, Method 1:

NT BUILD 492

Einstufung BBQ-Klassen (exemplarisch, Entwurf)ASR-Performance Test

30 ASR-Performance test shows the “real” performance of cements (here: effective alkali content!)

Gravel 2/8

w/c-ratio

AE =

crushed Gravel 8/16

OH- in mmol/l

500-600

300-400

Na2O-eq. = total alkali content of the cement

OH- = effective alkalies in the pore solution

Na2O-eq.



Description/


Assessment background /limit

values

Calculation

Limit state


▪ EN 206 + NAR


▪ min c, max w/c

▪ cmin etc.

▪ Test procedures

▪ CEN/TR 16563



▪ Models


Design“

▪ ISO 16204

31

Limit state carbonation acc. to Model Code SLD

𝑔𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑏 𝑋, 𝑡 = 𝑑𝑐 − 𝑥𝑐(𝑡)

𝑥𝑐 𝑡 = 2 ⋅ 𝑘𝑒 ⋅ 𝑘𝑐,𝑀𝐶 ⋅ 𝑘𝑡 ⋅ 𝑅𝐴𝐶𝐶,0−1 + 𝜀𝑡 ⋅ 𝐶𝑆 ⋅ 𝑡 ⋅ 𝑊(𝑡)

with

𝑘𝑒: Parameter to consider exposure conditions (rel. Humidity 𝑅𝐻)

𝑘𝑐,𝑀𝐶: Parameter to consider time of curing 𝑡𝑐𝑘𝑡 , 𝜀𝑡: Test method factors [-]

𝑅𝐴𝐶𝐶,0−1 : inverse effective carbonation resistance of dry concrete in (m²/s)/(kg/m³)

𝐶𝑆: CO2-concentration of the ambient air in kg/m³

𝑡: Time from the beginning of carbonation in s,

𝑊(𝑡): Weather function [-]

Limit state function:

Model for carbonation acc. to MC SLD:

with

𝑑𝑐: concrete cover

𝑥𝑐(𝑡): carbonation depth at the time t

32

Limit state carbonation acc. to Model Code SLD

𝑔𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑏 𝑋, 𝑡 = 𝑑𝑐 − 𝑥𝑐(𝑡)

𝑥𝑐 𝑡 = 2 ⋅ 𝑘𝑒 ⋅ 𝑘𝑐,𝑀𝐶 ⋅ 𝑘𝑡 ⋅ 𝑅𝐴𝐶𝐶,0−1 + 𝜀𝑡 ⋅ 𝐶𝑆 ⋅ 𝑡 ⋅ 𝑊(𝑡)

with

𝑘𝑒: Parameter to consider exposure conditions (rel. Humidity 𝑅𝐻)

𝑘𝑐,𝑀𝐶: Parameter to consider time of curing 𝑡𝑐𝑘𝑡 , 𝜀𝑡: Test method factors [-]

𝑅𝐴𝐶𝐶,0−1 : inverse effective carbonation resistance of dry concrete in (m²/s)/(kg/m³)

𝐶𝑆: CO2-concentration of the ambient air in kg/m³

𝑡: Time from the beginning of carbonation in s,

𝑊(𝑡): Weather function [-]

Limit state function:

Model for carbonation acc. to MC SLD:

with

𝑑𝑐: concrete cover

𝑥𝑐(𝑡): carbonation depth at the time t

33

Limit state carbonation – material parameters

Concrete Cement w/c xc [mm] 1) RACC-1

[(mm²/a)/(kg/m³)]

B0-Z1 CEM I 42,5 R 0.65 7.4 9790

B0-Z2 CEM III/A 42,5 N 0.65 11.5 23643

B1-Z1 CEM I 42,5 R 0.50 4.3 3260

B1-Z2 CEM III/A 42,5 N 0.50 4.3 3352

B1-Z3 CEM (35K/30S/35LL) 0.50 9.2 15132

B1-Z4 CEM (20K/30S/50LL) 0.50 16.4 48260

B1-Z5 CEM II/B-M (S-LL) 0.50 5.3 5022

B1-Z6 CEM II/C (50K/30S/20LL) 0.50 7.1 9012

1) 1d mould, 6d under water, 21d 20 °C/65 % r. H., 28d 2 Vol.-% CO2

34



[(mm²/a)/(kg/m³)]

B0-Z1 CEM I 42,5 R 0.65 7.4 9790

B0-Z2 CEM III/A 42,5 N 0.65 11.5 23643

B1-Z1 CEM I 42,5 R 0.50 4.3 3260

B1-Z2 CEM III/A 42,5 N 0.50 4.3 3352

B1-Z3 CEM (35K/30S/35LL) 0.50 9.2 15132

B1-Z4 CEM (20K/30S/50LL) 0.50 16.4 48260

B1-Z5 CEM II/B-M (S-LL) 0.50 5.3 5022

B1-Z6 CEM II/C (50K/30S/20LL) 0.50 7.1 9012


35



[(mm²/a)/(kg/m³)]

B0-Z1 CEM I 42,5 R 0.65 7.4 9790

B0-Z2 CEM III/A 42,5 N 0.65 11.5 23643

B1-Z1 CEM I 42,5 R 0.50 4.3 3260

B1-Z2 CEM III/A 42,5 N 0.50 4.3 3352

B1-Z3 CEM (35K/30S/35LL) 0.50 9.2 15132

B1-Z4 CEM (20K/30S/50LL) 0.50 16.4 48260

B1-Z5 CEM II/B-M (S-LL) 0.50 5.3 5022

B1-Z6 CEM II/C (50K/30S/20LL) 0.50 7.1 9012


36



[(mm²/a)/(kg/m³)]

B0-Z1 CEM I 42,5 R 0.65 7.4 9790

B0-Z2 CEM III/A 42,5 N 0.65 11.5 23643

B1-Z1 CEM I 42,5 R 0.50 4.3 3260

B1-Z2 CEM III/A 42,5 N 0.50 4.3 3352

B1-Z3 CEM (35K/30S/35LL) 0.50 9.2 15132

B1-Z4 CEM (20K/30S/50LL) 0.50 16.4 48260

B1-Z5 CEM II/B-M (S-LL) 0.50 5.3 5022

B1-Z6 CEM II/C (50K/30S/20LL) 0.50 7.1 9012


37

Combine CO2 performance with lifetime durability parameters

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80

Co

ncre

te s

usta

inab

ilty

(M

Pa x

a)/

(kg

CO₂)

Compressive strength MPa

XC3

Conrete sustainabilty in

(MPa x a) / (kg CO2) 1)

1) acc. to Haist et al: Ansatz zur Quantifizierung der Nachhaltigkeit von

Beton auf der Baustoffebene. In: Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 111 (2016),

Heft 10

Parameter 1 2 3

Cement --- CEM I CEM III/A CEM II/C

Clinker

intensitykg/(m3 x MPa) 7.2 2.8 2.7

Cement

contentkg/m3 280 320 320

w/c --- 0.65 0.50 0.50

fc,cube MPa 38.9 62.1 59.9

GWP CO2-eq/m³ 266 183 162

t to β = 0.5 a 53 133 57

1

3

2

38

Combine CO2 performance with lifetime durability parameters

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80

Co

ncre

te s

usta

inab

ilty

(M

Pa x

a)/

(kg

CO₂)

Compressive strength MPa

XC3

Conrete sustainabilty in

(MPa x a) / (kg CO2) 1)

1) acc. to Haist et al: Ansatz zur Quantifizierung der Nachhaltigkeit von

Beton auf der Baustoffebene. In: Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 111 (2016),

Heft 10

Parameter 1 2 3

Cement --- CEM I CEM III/A CEM II/C

Clinker

intensitykg/(m3 x MPa) 7.2 2.8 2.7

Cement

contentkg/m3 280 320 320

w/c --- 0.65 0.50 0.50

fc,cube MPa 38.9 62.1 59.9

GWP CO2-eq/m³ 266 183 162

t to β = 0.5 a 53 133 57

1

3

2

39

Conclusions

▪ Durability of concrete structures today is ensured mostly by deemed to satisfy

(DTS)-rules for the concrete composition, concrete cover and the curing.

▪ DTS-rules (minimum cement content, maximum water-cement ratio, application rules on

cement etc.) have been established nationally, based on experience.

▪ This principle has proved successful in wide areas of building with concrete.

40

Conclusions

▪ Durability of concrete structures today is ensured mostly by deemed to satisfy

(DTS)-rules for the concrete composition, concrete cover and the curing.

▪ DTS-rules (minimum cement content, maximum water-cement ratio, application rules on

cement etc.) have been established nationally, based on experience.

▪ This principle has proved successful in wide areas of building with concrete.

▪ Reasons to differ from the descriptive procedure that is based on experience today:

- minimum service life >> 50 years is to be verified

- new building materials without long-term experience

- specific environmental conditions / stresses

▪ Performance to be validated depends on the application; e. g. indoor concrete vs.

severe exposure

41

Conclusions

▪ Specification of test requirements and assessment criteria for the proof of the durability

potential of concrete in laboratories / service life design:

- Reliable exclusion of cases that have demonstrably lead to damage

- No exclusion of well-tried and proven concrete constituents

respectively concrete mixes

42

Conclusions

▪ Specification of test requirements and assessment criteria for the proof of the durability

potential of concrete in laboratories / service life design:

- Reliable exclusion of cases that have demonstrably lead to damage

- No exclusion of well-tried and proven concrete constituents

respectively concrete mixes

▪ Strength can be used as a proxy for durability in some cases (e. g. carbonation)

▪ Clinker efficient cements like CEM II/C are at least fit for use in indoor and “normal”

outdoor concrete when the concrete composition is sufficient and help to lower the

carbon footprint of concrete

▪ Limit state calculations can be used to combine the CO2 performance with service life

related durability parameters of concrete

43

Acknowledgement

Thanks to the collegues of

VDZ

and in particular to

Wibke Hermerschmidt

Sebastian Palm

44

A member of ECRA

Average cement content vs. min. cement content (XC1)

46

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

AT BE CZ DK FI FR DE IE IT NL PT SK UK

min caverage c

ce

me

ntco

nte

ntin

kg

/m3


47

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 100 200 300 400

minimum cement content in kg/m3

ave

rag

ece

me

ntco

nte

ntin

kg

/m3

FI

DK

NL

Fresh concrete temperature and consistency

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105

[mm

]

time [min.]

B1 M2 10°C

B1 M2 20°C

B1 M2 25°C

B1 M2 30 °C

flo

wva

lue

Consistency of concrete B1 varies depending on the temperature unpredictably

between normal stiffening and significant liquefaction → not robust

Source: HeidelbergCement - NEWSLETTER TECHNIK | Nr. 18 | Oktober 201348

Paste content

Fresh concrete temperature and consistency

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105

flo

wta

ble

sp

read

[mm

]

time [min.]

B3 M2 10°C

B3 M2 20°C

B3 M2 25°C

B3 M2 30°C

Paste contentConsistency of concrete B2

shows expected stiffening

as a function of temperature

→ robust

Source: HeidelbergCement - NEWSLETTER TECHNIK | Nr. 18 | Oktober 201349


50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 100 200 300 400


ave

rag

ece

me

ntco

nte

ntin

kg

/m3

FI

DK

NL▪ Low minimum cement

content is not necessariliy

an incentive for low cement

content in practice

▪ Sufficient cement content

contributes to robust fresh

concrete properties

Average clinker content vs. min. cement content (XC1)

51


avera

ge

clin

ker

conte

nt

in k

g/m

3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 100 200 300 400

NL

DK

FI

ATPT

IT

▪ DK:

- mean c: 260 kg/m3

- clinker factor: 0,86

▪ FI:

- mean c: 340 kg/m3


▪ NL:

- mean c: 320 kg/m3


▪ Low minimum cement


an incentive for low clinker

content in practice

▪ Different approaches

depending on availability of

materials

Average cement content vs. min. cement content (XF4)

53

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 100 200 300 400


ave

rag

ece

me

ntco

nte

ntin

kg

/m3

DK*



an incentive fort low cement

content in practice

▪ Sufficient cement content

contributes to robust fresh

concrete properties

▪ Limiting the cement content

not a sufficient measure

* under severe and very severe conditions (e. g. XF3/XF4)

minimum fines content ≥ 375 kg/m3

Average clinker content vs. min. cement content (XF4)

54


avera

ge

clin

ker

conte

nt

in k

g/m

3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

DK*

NL

IT

AT

▪ DK:

- mean c: 260 kg/m3


▪ FI:

- mean c: 340 kg/m3


▪ NL:

- mean c: 320 kg/m3




an incentive for low clinker

content in practice

▪ Different approaches

depending on availability of

materials

* under severe and very severe conditions (e. g. XF3/XF4)

minimum fines content ≥ 375 kg/m3

Average clinker content vs. min. cement content (XC1/XF4)

55


avera

ge

clin

ker

conte

nt

in k

g/m

3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 100 200 300 400

XC1

XF4

DK DK

EU:

- mean cement content: 280 kg/m3

- mean clinker factor: 0.74

- mean clinker content: 209 kg/m3

FI

Average clinker content vs. min. cement content (XC1/XF4)

56


avera

ge

clin

ker

conte

nt

in k

g/m

3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 100 200 300 400

XC1

XF4

DK DK

EU:

- mean cement content: 280 kg/m3

- mean clinker factor: 0.74

- mean clinker content: 209 kg/m3

FI

performance based specifications for concrete · 2019-03-11 · iso 16204 14. validation of...

Documents