Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T13:50:24.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Processing of Optimized Cements and Concretes Via Particle Packing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2013

D.M. Roy,
B.E. Scheetz and
M.R. Silsbee
Get access

Extract

It has been well-recognized for many years that the particle-size distributions of the cement and the grading of the aggregates play an important role in determining the properties and characteristics of cement and concrete products. DSP (densified with small particles) type cements and concretes, to a certain extent, MDF (macro-defect-free) cements, and optimized concretes are recently recognized outstanding examples of the application of this principle. The preset characteristics of the cementitious slurry are also strongly influenced by these factors. Both the workability of the fresh material, and the microstructure development are controlled to a considerable extent by these geometric parameters.

Two seminal works in the areas of continuous particle size distributions and particle packing are those of Andreason and Furnas, respectively. Furnas deals mainly with discrete systems and Andreason with continuous distributions. As early as 1907, the concept of idealized particle packing was being used to optimize cements and concretes. Figure 1a shows an idealized cross section of a simple cubic packing of monodispersed spheres. This system has a maximum packing density of 0.65%. In an ideally packed system of discrete size ranges, the size of the next smallest particles would be such that they just fit in the gaps between the largest size particles, and so on for subsequent particle sizes; this system is represented schematically in Figure 1b. Not only the sizes but also the relative numbers of particles are important; Figures 1c and 1d show systems where some fraction of the smaller and larger particle sizes, respectively, are missing. Figure 1e shows a system where the size of the second largest particles is too large to fit into the gaps between the largest particles, resulting in a lower packing efficiency. Thus, both the particle size and fractions are important when considering packing efficiency.

Information

Type
Advanced Cement-Based Materials
Information
MRS Bulletin , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , March 1993, pp. 45 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Andreasen, A.H.M., Kolloidchem. Beihefte 27 (1928) p. 349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Andreasen, A.H.M., Kolloid. Z. 48 (1929) p. 175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Andreasen, A.H.M. and Andersen, J., Kolloid. Z. 50 (1930) p. 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Furnas, C.C., “Relations between Specific Volume, Voids, and Size Composition in Systems of Broken Solids of Mixed Sizes,” U.S. Bureau of Mines Reports of Investigations No. 2894 (1928).Google Scholar
5.Furnas, C.C., “Grading Aggregates, I. Mathematical Relations for Beds of Broken Solids of Maximum Density,” Ind. Eng. Chem. 23 (9) (1931) p. 1052–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Fuller, W.B. and Thompson, S.E., “The Laws of Proportioning Concrete,” Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. 33 (1907) p. 261.Google Scholar
7.Li, H., Silsbee, M.R., and Roy, D.M., “Effect of Particle Size Distributions on Properties of High Strength Cementitious Composites,” presented at the 92nd Annual Meeting of the American Ceramic Society, April, 1990.Google Scholar
8.Birchall, J.D., Howard, A.J., and Kendall, K.K., Nature 289 (1981) p. 388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Silsbee, M.R., Perez-Pena, M., and Roy, D.M., in Specialty Cements with Advanced Properties, edited by Scheetz, B.E., et al., (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 179, Pittsburgh, PA, 1990) p. 145158.Google Scholar
10.Silsbee, M.R., Roy, D.M., and Perez-Pena, M., in Ceram. Trans. 16, “Advances in Cementitious Materials,” edited by Mindess, S., (1991) p. 395412.Google Scholar
11.Bache, H.H., “Densified Cement/Ultra-fine Particle-based Material,” CBL Internal Report No. 40 (1981).Google Scholar
12.Scheetz, B.E., Rizer, J.M., and Hahn, M., U.S. Patent No. 4,505,753 (1985).Google Scholar
13.Roy, D.M., Scheetz, B.E., Malek, R.I.A., and Shi, D., “Concrete Components Packing Handbook,” Supplemental Report No. 1 to SHRP Contract C201, SHRP-C/FR-92-102 (Strategic Highway Research Program, Washington, DC), in press.Google Scholar
14.Toufar, W., Born, M., and Klose, E., Freeberger Forschungsheft, A559 (VEB Deutschen Verlag für Grundslaffindustrie, 1967).Google Scholar
15.Aims, R.B. and LeGoff, P., Powder Technol. 1 (1967/1968) p. 281–290.Google Scholar
16.Cumberland, D.J. and Crawford, R.J., Handbook of Powder Technology (Elsevier, New York, 1988) p. 90–92.Google Scholar
17. AASHTO, Standard Method of Test for Rapid Determination of the Chloride Permeability of Concrete, T 277-83 (1983).Google Scholar