Accepted Manuscript

Lowering cement content in mortar by adding superfine zeolite as cement

replacement and optimizing mixture proportions

J.J. Chen, P.L. Ng, A.K.H. Kwan, L.G. Li

PII: S0959-6526(18)33407-3

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.007

Reference: JCLP 14766

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 22 July 2018

Accepted Date: 01 November 2018

Please cite this article as: J.J. Chen, P.L. Ng, A.K.H. Kwan, L.G. Li, Lowering cement content in
mortar by adding superfine zeolite as cement replacement and optimizing mixture proportions,
Journal of Cleaner Production (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.007

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

28/10/2018

Lowering cement content in mortar by adding superfine zeolite

as cement replacement and optimizing mixture proportions

J.J. Chen a,*, P.L. Ng b,c, A.K.H. Kwan b, L.G. Li d

Abstract: Reducing the cement consumption in concrete construction is an effective

method to lower the carbon footprint and alleviate global warming. One strategy is to
replace part of cement by a cementitious or non-cementitious filler. Another strategy is
to optimize the mixture proportions to minimize the cement content. Although these
strategies have been separately adopted, there is little research on their combined
adoption. To study the feasibility of combining these two strategies, a number of mortar
samples with varying amount of superfine zeolite (SZ) added, binder/aggregate (B/A)
ratio and water/binder (W/B) ratio were made for packing density, flowability,
cohesiveness and strength tests. The results revealed that adding 5% SZ to replace
cement would increase the packing density and flowability and decrease the
cement/strength ratio by 17% to 28%, depending on the other mixture parameters.
There is an optimum B/A ratio for minimum cement/strength ratio, which is generally
lower at lower strength level. The use of a suitable B/A ratio of 0.65 or 0.55 instead of a
constant and conservative value of 0.75 at strength level lower than 60 MPa could
reduce the cement content by about 10%.

Keywords: carbon footprint, cohesiveness, flowability, low-cement concrete, strength,

zeolite.

a Department of Civil Engineering, Foshan University, Foshan, China

b Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
c Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Lithuania

d School of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou, China

* Corresponding author. Tel.: (86) 13450891042; Email address: chenjiajian@fosu.edu.cn (J.J. Chen)

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. Introduction

The global temperature has on average risen by 0.6°C during the last century,
and a further rise of 1.4°C to 5.8°C is anticipated in this century (Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2004). The most responsible greenhouse gas for
such global warming is CO2. Growing awareness of the global warming problem has
called for reducing the CO2 emission worldwide. For instance, the British Government
has targeted to cut down their domestic emission by 50% by the year 2025 and by 80%
by the year 2050 (Environmental Data Interactive Exchange, 2014). A substantial part
of the CO2 emission is attributed to cement and concrete production. Approximately
0.9 ton of CO2 is generated for manufacturing one ton of cement (Worrell et al., 2001;
Flower and Sanjayan, 2007), and a further 0.1 ton of CO2 is generated for producing
each ton of concrete (The Concrete Centre, 2013).

According to official statistics from Chinese authorities, the production of

cement all over the world was approximately 4.1 billion ton in the year 2015 and the
production of cement in China alone was 2.4 billion ton in the year 2016 (National
Bureau of Statistics of China, 2018). Such large scale cement production is generating a
huge quantity of CO2 emission, or in other words, a very large carbon footprint. To
alleviate the global warming problem, many concrete researchers (Mehta, 2009;
Hasanbeigi et al., 2012; Turner and Collins, 2013; Collins, 2013) have advocated to
reduce the carbon footprint of concrete used in construction by lowering the cement
content in the concrete, especially high-strength concrete and self-consolidating
concrete, which tend to have a rather high cement content (Khayat, 2000; Okamura and
Ouchi, 2003; Ranjbar et al., 2013).

To reduce the cement consumption, one strategy is to lower the cement content
by adding cementitious fillers, such as natural pozzolans (Khan and Alhozaimy, 2011;
Cobîrzan et al., 2015) and porcelain polishing residue (de Matos et al., 2018), or non-
cementitious fillers, such as limestone fines (Chen et al., 2016) and wood sawdust
waste (Usman et al., 2018), as cement replacement. Other fillers have also been used.
Mashaly et al. (2018) reported that the addition of granite sludge as cement replacement
could enhance the abrasive resistance and durability. Lu and Poon (2018) found that the

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

addition of nanosilica could densify the microstructure of glass powder blended cement
matrix. Rashidian-Dezfouli et al. (2018) revealed that a paste composed of 70% cement
+ 30% glass powder could mitigate the alkali-silica reaction. By this strategy, the paste
volume will be maintained to ensure that there exists sufficient paste to fill the voids
between aggregate particles. In fact, if the filler is finer than cement, the filler can even
increase the packing density of the mortar/concrete (Kwan and Chen, 2013) to improve
the general performance (Chen et al., 2017; Mashaly et al., 2018; Lu and Poon, 2018).
However, the drawback of this strategy is that if the filler is chemically less reactive, its
addition as cement replacement may adversely affect the strength of the
mortar/concrete (Bouasker et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2008; He et al., 2017).

Among the various cementitious fillers available, zeolite is proven to be a good

choice for cement replacement and performance improvement in eco-friendly concrete
production (Valipour et al., 2014; Ramezanianpour et al., 2015; Vejmelková et al.,
2015; Markiv et al., 2016; Nagrockienė and Girskas, 2016; Chen et al., 2016, 2017;
Nagrockienė et al., 2017). It has a low hardness and is therefore relatively easy to grind.
Zeolite ground to a particle size finer than cement is called superfine zeolite (SZ).
Physically, SZ can fill into the voids between cement grains to result in higher packing
density of the particle skeleton. Chemically, it is composed mainly of SiO2 and Al2O3
that would react with the Ca(OH)2 produced from cement hydration to form calcium
silicate hydrate and calcium aluminate hydrate, i.e. gel. Its addition to partially replace
cement would directly reduce the cement consumption in concrete production, but
there is a certain limit because excessive replacement of cement by SZ would adversely
affect the overall performance of concrete.

Another strategy is to lower the binder content (the binder content includes the
cement and the cementitious fillers added) through decreasing the binder/aggregate
(B/A) ratio. The authors’ research group (Chen et al., 2014; Li and Kwan, 2015; Ling
and Kwan, 2018) has shown that decreasing the B/A ratio without changing the
water/binder (W/B) ratio by adding a non-cementitious filler as paste replacement
could reduce the cement content while at same time enhance the tensile strength,
stiffness, impermeability and dimensional stability. Furthermore, Bentz et al. (2016)
have demonstrated that the addition of a suitable amount of limestone fines as paste

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

replacement could slightly improve the strength. By this strategy, which does not
change the mixture proportioning of the binder paste, the effective W/B ratio is
maintained to avoid decrease in strength when the B/A ratio is lowered to reduce the
paste volume and binder content. However, since the paste has the role to fill the voids
between aggregate particles and form paste films to coat and lubricate the aggregate
particles (Ling and Kwan, 2016), the B/A ratio should not be inadvertently decreased
but should rather be optimized to minimize the binder content.

It is noteworthy that the above two strategies are not exclusive to each other. In
theory, these two strategies can be simultaneous adopted to achieve a larger reduction
in cement consumption. To date, there has been little research on the simultaneous
adoption of these two strategies and their combined effects on the mortar/concrete
produced. To fill this research gap for the advancement of eco-friendly low-cement
content concrete technology, a systematic study to explore the combined adoption of
the strategy of adding a superfine cementitious filler such as SZ to partially replace
cement and the strategy of optimizing the mixture proportions through the adjustment
of the B/A ratio has been carried out. A total of 30 mortar samples, each representing
the mortar portion of a concrete mixture with varying SZ content, B/A ratio and W/B
ratio, were produced for fresh and hardened performance tests. Their packing densities
and water film thickness (WFT) were also determined to investigate their roles in the
performance of the mortar produced.

2. Materials

The ordinary Portland cement (OPC) employed in this research was of strength
class 42.5N per European Standard EN 197: Part 1: 2011. The superfine zeolite (SZ)
used was of the clinoptilolite type from a natural source in Henan Province in central
part of China. It was ground to superfine size for use as a binder. Table 1 presents the
chemical compositions of the OPC and SZ. The total content of (SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3)
in the SZ was 77.7%, which satisfied the minimum requirement of 70% specified in
American Standard ASTM C618 for raw or calcined natural pozzolans. The fine
aggregate employed was the standard sand commonly used for determining the strength
of cement for quality control (International Organization for Standardization, 2009)

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and has been tested to have a moisture content of 0.27%, a water absorption of 1.02%
and a fineness modulus of 2.48. The relative densities of the OPC, SZ and fine
aggregate were measured following the method stipulated in European Standard EN
1097: Part 3: 1998 to be 3.127, 2.241 and 2.476, respectively.

The particle size distributions of the OPC and SZ were measured using a laser
diffraction particle size analyser, whereas that of the fine aggregate was measured by
means of mechanical sieving. The resulting particle size distribution curves are plotted
in Fig. 1. According to the measurement results, the median particle sizes of the OPC,
SZ and fine aggregate were 9.34 m, 3.55 m and 0.77 mm, respectively. Using the
calculation method by Hunger and Brouwers (2009), the specific surface areas of the
OPC, SZ and fine aggregate are computed as 1.14×106 m2/m3 (368 m2/kg), 2.73×106
m2/m3 (1239 m2/kg) and 1.36×104 m2/m3 (5.51 m2/kg), respectively. As can be seen
from these results, the particle size of SZ is finer than that of OPC, and the size range of
SZ is wider. Lastly, a liquid form superplasticizer (SP) with a relative density of 1.03
was added to aid the dispersion of fine particles in each mortar mixture. The SP
employed in this research was of the polycarboxylate type, whose molecule structure
was characterised by a backbone chain attached with side chains.

3. Experimental programme

To optimize the concrete mixture design so as to lower the cement content, it

was chosen to work on the mortar portion of the concrete mixture. The experimental
programme comprised of two phases. In the first phase, the static flowability, dynamic
flowability and cohesiveness of the fresh mortar and the compressive strength of the
hardened mortar containing different amounts of SZ and with different B/A ratios and
W/B ratios were measured. Based on the measured properties, the combined effects of
the SZ content, B/A ratio and W/B ratio on the fresh and hardened properties were
evaluated. In the second phase, the packing densities of the mortar mixtures containing
different amounts of SZ and with different B/A ratios were measured. Then, the
combined effects of the SZ content and B/A ratio on the packing density and WFT were
evaluated. As it is the proportioning by volume of the various ingredients rather than
the proportioning by mass that has a more direct role in the rheology of mortar (Ng et

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

al., 2016), the SZ content, B/A ratio and W/B ratio were quantified by volume. In both
phases, the laboratory temperature was controlled at 24±2°C.

For the first phase, the SZ content, expressed as a volumetric percentage of the
total binder content, was varied from 0 to 20% in increments of 5%, the B/A ratio was
varied among 0.55, 0.65 and 0.75, and the W/B ratio was varied between 1.3 and 1.4. In
total, there were 5 different SZ contents, 3 different B/A ratios and 2 different W/B
ratios. Altogether, 5×3×2 = 30 mortar mixtures were produced for testing. Each mortar
mixture so produced was assigned a mix number of Z-A-B-C, in which Z means
zeolite, A represents the SZ content, B represents the B/A ratio, and C represents the
W/B ratio. The mixture proportions of the mortar mixtures are listed in Table 2.

Regarding the SP dosage, since SP is essentially a surfactant, it should be the

amount of SP per solid surface area that determines the plasticizing effectiveness.
Therefore, the SP dosage in this study was expressed in terms of the liquid mass of SP
per solid surface area of the binder (Kwan et al., 2012). Trial cement pastes at different
SP dosages were mixed and the results showed that the saturation dosage (the dosage
beyond which further addition has little effect) of the SP was 26×10-6 kg/m2 (this
corresponds to approximately 0.95% by mass of cement if the binder includes OPC
only). Based on this saturation dosage, the SP dosage was set as 26×10-6 kg/m2 for all
the mortar samples. Due to the larger specific surface area of the SZ than the OPC, at a
higher SZ content, the SP dosage per mass of binder was higher.

For the second phase, similarly, the SZ content was varied among 0%, 5%,
10%, 15% and 20%, whereas the B/A ratio was varied among 0.55, 0.65 and 0.75.
There were altogether 5 different SZ contents and 3 different B/A ratios. In total, 5×3 =
15 blended solid mixtures were produced for packing density measurement by means
of the wet packing method (Kwan and Wong, 2008; Wong and Kwan, 2008). Then,
based on the measured packing density, the subsequent step was to calculate the voids
ratio and WFT of each mortar mixture tested in the first phase for studying the roles of
packing density and WFT in connection with the performance of mortar.

4. Test methods

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.1 Flowability measurement

The static flowability was revealed by the flow spread which was measured by
means of the mini slump cone test, while the dynamic flowability was revealed by the
flow rate which was measured by means of the Marsh cone test. Both these two tests
were first proposed by Aїtcin (1998). The details and dimensions of the mini slump
cone and Marsh cone were as given by Okamura and Ouchi (2003) and European
Standard EN 445: 2007, respectively. During the slump cone test, the flow spread was
measured as the increase in diameter of the mortar patty after the mini slump cone was
lifted up and the flow by gravity ceased. Moreover, any sign of bleeding observed was
recorded. During the Marsh cone test, the flow rate was measured as the average rate
(expressed as volume per time) of the mortar flowing out from the Marsh cone.

4.2 Cohesiveness measurement

There is no established test for cohesiveness measurement of mortar up to now.

In this research, the authors employed a reduced-scale version of the sieve segregation
test for self-consolidating concrete recommended by the SCC European Project Group
(2005). The sieve was of 1.25 mm aperture size, which is a common sieve used in the
sieve analysis of fine aggregate. In carrying out the test, 400 g of the mortar sample was
dropped from 300 mm height onto the sieve. After waiting for 2 minutes, the
percentage of the mortar sample dripped through the sieve to the receiver at the bottom
was determined by weighing and taken as the sieve segregation index (SSI). For a
mortar mixture with lower cohesiveness, a larger portion of mortar would drip through
the sieve, and vice versa. Therefore, a high SSI indicates low cohesiveness while a low
SSI indicates high cohesiveness.

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.3 Strength measurement

For each mortar mixture in the experimental programme, three 100 mm cubes
were cast for compressive strength test. Compaction was applied using a vibration
table. After compaction, all the cube specimens were covered to prevent evaporation
and stored in the laboratory, demoulded and placed in a curing chamber after 24 hours,
and kept in the chamber until the age of 28 days for strength test. Finally, the mean
strength of the three cubes was determined and taken as the strength result.

4.4 Packing density measurement

The wet packing method (Kwan and Wong, 2008; Wong and Kwan, 2008) was
adopted for measuring the packing density of each solid mixture. The key procedures
were as follows. A number of samples with identical mixture proportions of the solid
ingredients but with different water contents were produced, such that the water
contents covered the range from lower than to higher than sufficient to fill the voids
between the solid particles. At each water content, the bulk density was measured to
calculate the solid concentration of the sample. Finally, the maximum solid
concentration of the samples with the same solid mixture proportions but different
water contents was determined and taken as the packing density result.

4.5 Water film thickness calculation

From the measured packing density of the solid mixture, the corresponding
voids ratio u (voids volume to solid volume ratio) can be computed following previous
research (Kwan and Wong, 2008) as:

1  max
u= (1)
max

in which max is the maximum solid concentration (same as the packing density) of the
solid mixture. Then, following previous research (Ng et al., 2016), the excess water
ratio uw (excess water volume to solid volume ratio) can be calculated from:

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

uw = uw  u (2)

in which uw is the water ratio (water volume to solid volume ratio) of the mortar. On the
other hand, the specific surface area AM (solid surface area to solid volume ratio) of the
mortar can be computed as:

AM = AOPC × ROPC + ASZ × RSZ + AA × RA (3)

where AOPC and ROPC are respectively the specific surface area and volumetric
percentage of OPC in the solid mixture, ASZ and RSZ are respectively the specific surface
area and volumetric percentage of SZ in the solid mixture, and AA and RA are
respectively the specific surface area and volumetric percentage of aggregate in the
solid mixture. Finally, the WFT, i.e. the average thickness of the water films coating the
solid particles, is worked out as:

u w'
WFT = (4)
AM

5. Test results

5.1 Static and dynamic flowability

The flow spread results, which represent the static flowability, are listed in the
second column of Table A.1 in the Appendix and plotted against the SZ content in Fig.
2. No bleeding problem was found during the tests for all the mortar samples. From the
flow spread curves, it is obvious that at fixed B/A ratio and W/B ratio, the addition of
SZ to replace up to 5% cement increased the static flowability, while further addition of
SZ to beyond 5% decreased the static flowability. For instance, at B/A ratio of 0.55 and
W/B ratio of 1.3, adding 5% SZ improved the flow spread from 94.0 to 116.0 mm,
while adding up to 20% SZ decreased the flow spread to 60.5 mm. On the other hand,
the results show that with or without SZ added, increasing the B/A ratio had positive
effect on the static flowability due to the presence of more paste to lubricate the solid
particles. For instance, at SZ content of 5% and W/B ratio of 1.3, an increase of B/A
ratio from 0.55 to 0.75 improved the flow spread from 116.0 to 176.0 mm. Lastly, as

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

expected, the flow spread increased with the W/B ratio due to the presence of a higher
water content at a higher W/B ratio.

The flow rate results, which represent the dynamic flowability, are listed in the
third column of Table A.1 in the Appendix and plotted against the SZ content in Fig. 3.
As shown by the flow rate curves in the figure, it is apparent that at fixed B/A ratio and
W/B ratio, adding SZ to replace up to 5% cement improved the dynamic flowability,
while adding more SZ to beyond 5% reduced the dynamic flowability. For instance, at
B/A ratio of 0.55 and W/B ratio of 1.3, the addition of 5% SZ increased the flow rate
from 7.6 to 14.5 mL/s, while the addition of up to 20% SZ decreased the flow rate to
11.6 mL/s. On the other hand, with or without SZ added, increasing the B/A ratio
improved the dynamic flowability of mortar due to the presence of more paste. For
instance, at SZ content of 5% and W/B ratio of 1.3, an increase of B/A ratio from 0.55
to 0.75 increased the flow rate from 14.5 to 36.8 mL/s. Meanwhile, as expected, the
flow rate increased with the W/B ratio.

Overall, the addition of SZ could increase or decrease the static and dynamic
flowability, depending on the SZ content. These results are in line with the findings
reported by Markiv et al. (2016), who showed that partial replacement of cement by
ground natural zeolite would not necessarily increase the flowability. Such increase and
decrease in flowability caused by the use of SZ may be explained by the effects of SZ
on the packing density and specific surface area of the solid particles in the mortar
mixture, as will be discussed from the viewpoint of WFT later in this paper.

5.2 Cohesiveness and segregation stability

The 1.25 mm SSI results, which represent the cohesiveness and segregation
stability, are presented in the fourth column of Table A.1 in the Appendix and plotted
against the SZ content in Fig. 4. The SSI curves indicate that at fixed B/A ratio and W/B
ratio, with the exception of random variation due to experimental error, adding SZ to
replace up to 5% cement had not significantly affected the SSI, while adding SZ to
replace more than 5% cement decreased the SSI. For instance, at B/A ratio of 0.55 and
W/B ratio of 1.3, the addition of 5% SZ changed the SSI slightly from 21.4% to 23.1%,

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

while the addition of up to 20% SZ decreased the SSI remarkably to 7.9%. However, an
increase of B/A ratio from 0.55 to 0.65 increased the SSI, while further increase of B/A
ratio from 0.65 to 0.75 decreased the SSI. For instance, at SZ content of 5% and W/B
ratio of 1.3, an increase of B/A ratio from 0.55 to 0.65 increased the SSI from 23.1% to
38.9%, while further increase of the B/A ratio to 0.75 decreased the SSI to 30.0%.
Lastly, as expected, the mortar mixtures with a higher W/B ratio exhibited higher SSI
due to the increase in water content.

Since a higher SSI indicates a lower cohesiveness and vice versa, the above
results imply that the addition of SZ could change slightly or improve the cohesiveness,
depending on the SZ content, and an increase of B/A ratio could improve or impair the
cohesiveness, depending on the B/A ratio. Such effects on the cohesiveness may be
explicated by the corresponding variations in the packing density and specific surface
area of the solid particles in the mortar mixture and the bridging effect of the smaller
size binder particles across the voids between the larger size aggregate particles, as will
be discussed later from the viewpoints of packing density and WFT.

5.3 Compressive strength

The 28-day cube compressive strength results are tabulated in the second last
column of Table A.1 in the Appendix, and plotted against the SZ content in Fig. 5.
These results reveal that within the ranges of B/A ratio and W/B ratio studied, the cube
strength increased with increasing SZ content up to an optimum SZ content of 5% and
then decreased with further increasing SZ content. For instance, at B/A ratio of 0.55 and
W/B ratio of 1.3, the addition of 5% SZ increased the cube strength by 32.7% from 39.4
to 52.3 MPa, while the addition of up to 20% SZ decreased the cube strength to 33.5
MPa. The increase in strength upon the addition of 5% SZ in place of cement may be
explicated by the improvement in packing density of the mortar mixture attributed to
the filling effect of the finer SZ particles into the voids between cement grains and
aggregate particles. The decrease in strength upon the addition of more than 5% SZ
may be attributed to the reduced amount of cement due to cement replacement and the
relatively small increase in packing density, as will be illustrated by the packing density
results.

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

On the other hand, an increase of B/A ratio from 0.55 to 0.75 increased the cube
strength. For instance, at SZ content of 0% and W/B ratio of 1.3, an increase of B/A
ratio from 0.55 to 0.75 increased the cube strength by 38.6% from 39.4 to 54.6 MPa,
and at SZ content of 20% and W/B ratio of 1.4, an increase of B/A ratio from 0.55 to
0.75 increased the cube strength by 32.8% from 25.6 to 34.0 MPa. Such increases in
strength with the B/A ratio were due to the slightly higher packing density at a higher
B/A ratio and the availability of more paste to fill the voids between aggregate particles.
However, the increases in strength were achieved at the expense of a significantly
larger amount of cement at a higher B/A ratio.

Lastly, at fixed SZ content and B/A ratio, the mortar mixtures with a higher
W/B ratio of 1.4 generally have lower strength and those with a lower W/B ratio of 1.3
generally have higher strength, just like ordinary mortar and concrete.

5.4 Packing density

The wet packing density results from the second phase of the experimental
programme are listed in the second column of Table A.2 in the Appendix and plotted
against the SZ content at various B/A ratios in Fig. 6. The results show that adding 5%
SZ to replace cement effectively improved the particle packing. For instance, at B/A
ratio of 0.65, an increase in SZ content from 0% to 5% increased the packing density
from 0.700 to 0.713. This may be explicated by the filling ability of the SZ particles,
which underwent grinding in the production process to become finer than cement.
However, further increase of SZ content did not always increase the packing density.
For instance, at B/A ratio of 0.65, an increase from 5% to 10% SZ improved the
packing density from 0.713 to 0.714 and further increase from 10% to 20% SZ
decreased the packing density from 0.714 to 0.705. This was due to the diminishing
filling effect of the SZ when the majority of the voids between larger particles had been
filled and the loosening effect of the excess SZ not filled into the voids between the
larger particles (the excess SZ pushed the cement grains apart causing loosening of the
particle skeleton). The results also show that increasing the B/A ratio from 0.55 to 0.75
increased the packing density. For instance, at 10% SZ, an increase of B/A ratio from

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

0.55 through 0.65 to 0.75 improved the packing density from 0.707 through 0.714 to
0.725. Such improvement in packing may be explained by the filling of the cement and
SZ (both finer than the aggregate) into the voids between aggregate particles.

The improvement in packing would result in a denser particle skeleton in the

fresh mortar, which would then densify the microstructure of the hardened mortar. This
explains why in the present study, the addition of 5% SZ and/or the adoption of a higher
B/A ratio significantly improved the strength. On the other hand, the voids ratios,
calculated using Equation (1), are presented in the third column of Table A.2 in the
Appendix and plotted alongside the packing density results in Fig. 6. These results
reveal that though the maximum increases in packing density were only 1.1%, 2.0%
and 2.8% at B/A ratios of 0.55, 0.65 and 0.75, respectively, the corresponding
decreases in voids ratio were 3.9%, 6.5% and 9.3%, which were not small. In theory, a
lower voids ratio would require less amount of water for filling the voids, and this could
lead to the availability of a larger amount of excess water to form water films on the
surfaces of the solid particles in the mortar mixture, as explained below.

6. WFT and its role in flowability and cohesiveness

In general, the water content, specific solid surface area and packing density of
the water-solid mixture can all affect the fresh properties of mortar or concrete
mixtures. The authors’ research group (Chen and Kwan, 2013; Kwan and Chen, 2013)
has been advocating that the combined effects of these mixture parameters can be
assessed by way of the resulting WFT of the water-solid mixture, which is computed as
the ratio of excess water to solid surface area using Equations (1), (2), (3) and (4), as
summarised in the fourth to seventh columns of Table A.2 in the Appendix.

The WFT of the mortar mixtures are plotted against the SZ content at different
B/A and W/B ratios in Fig. 7 to visualize how the WFT varied with the mixture
parameters. From the WFT curves plotted, as the SZ content increased from 0% to 5%,
the WFT generally increased because the increase in excess water attributed to
improved packing was proportionally greater than the increase in specific surface area
of the solid particles. On the contrary, as the SZ content increased to 10%, the WFT

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

began to decrease despite further increase in packing density because the increase in
excess water became proportionally smaller than the increase in specific surface area.
As the SZ content further increased to beyond 10%, the WFT decreased as a result of
decrease in packing density and increase in specific surface area. These results reveal
that the incorporation of a filler finer than OPC, such as SZ, to improve the packing
density could increase the WFT but a relatively high filler content could excessively
increase the specific surface area to decrease the WFT. Furthermore, the WFT curves
for different B/A and W/B ratios also reveal that generally, the WFT would increase
with increasing B/A ratio and/or W/B ratio as a consequence of the corresponding
increase in water content.

To investigate the effects of the WFT on the static and dynamic flowability, the
flow spread and flow rate results are plotted against the WFT for different B/A and
W/B ratios in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. By means of regression analysis, the flow
spread and flow rate are correlated with the WFT. From the regression equations so
obtained, the corresponding best-fit curves are also plotted in the figures. The good
correlation in Fig. 8, as revealed by the closeness of the data points to the best-fit curve
and the desirable R2 (coefficient of determination) value of 0.870, indicates that the
WFT is an important factor affecting the flow spread. Likewise, the good correlation in
Fig. 9, as revealed by the closeness of the data points to the best-fit curve and the high
R2 value of 0.912, indicates that the WFT is also an important factor affecting the flow
rate. Hence, the WFT is a dominant factor determining the static and dynamic
flowability.

To investigate the effects of the WFT on the cohesiveness and segregation

stability, the 1.25 mm SSI results are plotted against the WFT for different B/A and
W/B ratios in Fig. 10. This time, however, the SSI varied with both the WFT and B/A
ratio. Through multi-variable regression analysis, the SSI is correlated with both the
WFT and B/A ratio. The correlation yields three best-fit curves, one for each B/A ratio,
as plotted in the figure. Overall, the data points are quite close to the respective best-fit
curve and a fairly good R2 value of 0.709 is obtained. Hence, the WFT and B/A ratio
both have great effects on the cohesiveness. Regarding the effect of the WFT, the SSI
tended to increase with the WFT at a gradually increasing rate. Regarding the effect of

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the B/A ratio, an increase of the B/A ratio would shift the SSI-WFT curve to the right
such that at a higher B/A ratio, the SSI at the same WFT would be lower. This may be
attributed to the bridging effect of the cement and SZ particles filled into the voids
between aggregate particles, which develops bridging forces through the contact points
among the solid particles to enhance the cohesiveness. As increasing the B/A ratio
would increase the WFT to increase the flowability and at the same WFT increase the
cohesiveness, a relatively high B/A ratio is generally desirable to simultaneously
achieve high flowability and cohesiveness, which are crucial for the production of
concrete with self-consolidating property (Khayat, 2000).

7. Cement content and cement/strength ratio

As shown by the cement contents presented in Table 2, the addition of SZ to

replace cement and the decrease of the B/A ratio from 0.75 to 0.65 or 0.55 would both
significantly reduce the cement content. Basically, the addition of 5% SZ would reduce
the cement content by 5.0% and the addition of 10% SZ would reduce the cement
content by 10.0%. Likewise, the decrease of the B/A ratio from 0.75 to 0.65 would
reduce the cement content by 5.2% to 5.3% and the decrease of the B/A ratio from 0.75
to 0.55 would reduce the cement content by 11.5% to 11.8%. Putting the two strategies
together, the addition of 5% SZ and the decrease of the B/A ratio from 0.75 to 0.55
would together reduce the cement content by 15.9% to 16.2%.

However, since the addition of SZ to replace cement and/or the change in B/A
ratio would also affect the strength, the effectiveness of these two strategies in lowering
the cement content should be assessed with the corresponding change in strength taken
into account. If the strength is increased, then a smaller sectional size and a smaller
volume of concrete could be used to further reduce the cement content. Conversely, if
the strength is decreased, then a larger sectional size and a larger volume of concrete
would have to be used leading to an increase in total cement content. Hence, it is
proposed that the effectiveness in lowering the cement content should be assessed in
terms of the cement content per volume to 28-day cube strength ratio, which is
abbreviated herein as the cement/strength ratio. A mortar or concrete with a lower
cement/strength ratio is considered to be more efficient in the usage of cement and thus

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

more eco-friendly. For such assessment, the cement/strength ratios of the mortar
mixtures are presented in the last column of Table A.1 in the Appendix and for
visualization plotted against the SZ content in Fig. 11.

From the cement/strength ratios, it can be seen that whilst the addition of 5% SZ
to replace cement would reduce the cement content by only 5.0%, this would at B/A
ratio = 0.55 and W/B ratio = 1.3, lower the cement/strength ratio from 19.27 to 13.79
kg/m3/MPa by 28.4% and at B/A ratio = 0.75 and W/B ratio = 1.4, lower the
cement/strength ratio from 16.02 to 13.32 kg/m3/MPa by 16.9%, due to the increase in
strength upon the addition of SZ. This means if advantage is taken of the increase in
strength to reduce the size of the concrete member, the total cement content can be
reduced by as much as 16.9% to 28.4%. However, although the addition of 10% SZ
would reduce the cement content by 10.0%, this would at B/A ratio = 0.55 and W/B
ratio = 1.3, lower the cement/strength ratio only from 19.27 to 14.99 kg/m3/MPa by
22.2% and at B/A ratio = 0.75 and W/B ratio = 1.4, raise the cement/strength ratio from
16.02 to 16.94 kg/m3/MPa by 5.7%, due to the smaller increase or even decrease in
strength upon the addition of SZ. Overall, it appears that the addition of 5% SZ to
partially replace cement is the optimum for lowering the cement/strength ratio.

Regarding the possible lowering of the cement/strength ratio by decreasing the

B/A ratio, there is the dilemma that a higher B/A ratio would generally produce a higher
packing density and a higher strength because of the availability of more fine materials
and paste to fill the voids between aggregate particles. Hence, from the performance
point of view, a relatively high B/A ratio is actually desired. Since decreasing the B/A
ratio could decrease the strength, the B/A ratio should not be inadvertently decreased
but should rather be optimized to minimize the cement/strength ratio. However, finding
the optimum B/A ratio for minimum cement/strength ratio is not straight forward
because it seems to vary with the strength level. To determine the optimum B/A ratio at
different strength level, the cement/strength ratios of the mortar mixtures are plotted
against the 28-day cube strength in Fig. 12. To identify the optimum B/A ratio giving
the lowest cement/strength ratio, the data points representing the mortar mixtures with
the lowest cement/strength ratio within the strength ranges of lower than 40 MPa, 40 to
50 MPa, 50 to 60 MPa and higher than 60 MPa are underlined. These underlined data

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

points show that within the above strength ranges, the optimum B/A ratios are 0.55,
0.55, 0.65 or 0.75, and 0.75, respectively. Overall, the optimum B/A ratio is generally
higher at a higher strength level and lower at a lower strength level. Choosing a
constant and conservative B/A ratio of say 0.75 at all times would not help to lower the
cement content but choosing a suitable B/A ratio of 0.65 or 0.55 at cube strength lower
than 60 MPa could reduce the cement content by up to about 10%.

Lastly, it is also seen from Fig. 12 that the cement/strength ratio is in general
lower when the strength level is higher. Therefore, in the structural design, the use of a
higher strength concrete with a lower W/B ratio so as to reduce the member sizes and
the volume of concrete to be used would also help to lower the total cement content in
the concrete structure.

8. Conclusions

In the foregoing sections, the authors have reported an experimental programme

for investigating the possibility of lowering the cement content in mortar by adding
superfine zeolite (SZ) as cement replacement and/or decreasing the binder/aggregate
(B/A) ratio. Altogether, 30 mortar mixtures were tested for fresh and hardened
properties and 15 blended solid mixtures were tested for wet packing density. And, the
water film thickness (WFT) of all the 30 mortar mixtures has been evaluated.

The research findings are summarised as follows:

1). The addition of SZ to replace up to 5% cement would increase the static

flowability, dynamic flowability and strength, but would not significantly
change the cohesiveness, while further addition of SZ to beyond 5% would turn
to decrease the static flowability, dynamic flowability and strength, but improve
the cohesiveness. At the same time, adding 5% or 10% SZ would increase the
packing density, while further addition of SZ to beyond 10% would turn to
decrease the packing density.

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2). Increasing the B/A ratio would improve the static flowability and dynamic
flowability, increase or decrease the cohesiveness depending on other mixture
parameters, increase the strength, and also increase the packing density.

3). The WFT is the dominant factor governing the static and dynamic flowability,
whereas both the WFT and B/A ratio are important factors affecting the
cohesiveness. The addition of SZ up to 5% would increase the WFT, while
further addition of SZ to beyond 5% would turn to decrease the WFT. In
contrast, increasing the B/A ratio would always increase the WFT.

4). Both the addition of SZ to replace cement and the decrease of the B/A ratio can
effectively reduce the cement content. However, these two strategies also have
certain positive or negative effects on the strength. Their effectiveness should
be assessed via the cement/strength ratio because an increase in strength would
allow smaller member sizes to be used to reduce the concrete volume and the
total cement content in the concrete structure. There are optimum SZ contents
and B/A ratios for minimizing the cement/strength ratio.

5). At all B/A ratios and W/B ratios within the ranges covered in the current study,
the optimum SZ content is about 5%. Adding 5% SZ to replace cement would
lower the cement/strength ratio by 17% to 28%, depending on the other mixture
parameters. It is noteworthy that the percentage lowering of the cement/strength
ratio is much larger than the percentage lowering of the cement content because
the addition of 5% SZ would substantially enhance the strength.

6). Within the strength ranges of lower than 40 MPa, 40 to 50 MPa, 50 to 60 MPa
and higher than 60 MPa, the optimum B/A ratios are 0.55, 0.55, 0.65 or 0.75,
and 0.75, respectively. The use of a suitable B/A ratio of 0.65 or 0.55 instead of
a constant and conservative value of 0.75 at strength lower than 60 MPa could
reduce the cement content by up to about 10%.

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Declaration

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in connection with the
works reported in this paper.

Acknowledgement

The research work presented in this paper was partially supported by funding
from National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No. 51608131).

References

Aїtcin P.-C., 1998. High-Performance Concrete. London and New York: E&FN Spon;
591pp.
Bentz D.P., Jones S.Z., Lootens D., 2016. Minimizing paste content in concrete using
limestone powders - demonstration mixtures. NIST Technical Note 1906,
National Institute of Standards and Technology, USA, 38pp.
Bouasker M., Mounanga P., Turcry P., Loukili A., Khelidj A., 2008. Chemical
shrinkage of cement pastes and mortars at very early age: effect of limestone
filler and granular inclusions. Cem. Concr. Compos. 30(1), 13-22.
Chen J.J., Kwan A.K.H., 2013. Triple blending with fly ash microsphere and
condensed silica fume to improve performance of cement paste. J. Mater. Civil.
Engin. 25(5), 618-626.
Chen J.J., Kwan A.K.H., Jiang Y., 2014. Adding limestone fines as cement paste
replacement to reduce water permeability and sorptivity of concrete. Constr.
Build. Mater. 56, 87-93.
Chen J.J., Li L.G., Ng P.L., Kwan A.K.H., 2017. Effects of superfine zeolite on
strength, flowability and cohesiveness of cementitious paste. Cem. Concr.
Compos. 83, 101-110.
Chen J.J., Ng P.L., Li L.G., Kwan A.K.H., 2016. Use of limestone fines to reduce
permeability of concrete for durability improvement. American J. Civ. Engin.
4(4), 185-190.
Cobîrzan N., Balog A.-A., Moşonyi E., 2015. Investigation of the natural pozzolans for
usage in cement industry. Procedia Technol. 19, 506-511.

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Collins F.G., 2013. 2nd generation concrete construction: carbon footprint accounting.
Engin. Constr. Archit. Manage. 20(4), 330-344.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2004. Scientific and Technical
Aspects of Climate Change, Including Impacts and Adaptation and Associated
Costs. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Report), London.
de Matos P.R., de Oliveira A.L., Pelisser F., Prudêncio Jr L.R., 2018. Rheological
behavior of Portland cement pastes and self-compacting concretes containing
porcelain polishing residue. Constr. Build. Mater. 175, 508-518.
Environmental Data Interactive Exchange, 2014. Environmental News, Environmental
Jobs, Suppliers and Technical Info for Sustainability. Faversham House Group,
UK.
Flower D.J.M., Sanjayan J.G., 2007. Green house gas emissions due to concrete
manufacture. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12(5), 282-288.
Hasanbeigi A., Price L., Lin E., 2012. Emerging energy-efficiency and CO2 emission
reduction technologies for cement and concrete production: A technical review.
Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 16(8), 6220-6238.
He Z.H., Li L.Y., Du G., 2017. Mechanical properties, drying shrinkage, and creep of
concrete containing lithium slag. Constr. Build. Mater. 147, 296-304.
Hunger M., Brouwers H.J.H., 2009. Flow analysis of water-powder mixtures:
application to specific surface area and shape factor. Cem. Concr. Compos. 31(1)
39-59.
International Organization for Standardization. 2009. ISO 679: 2009. Cement: Test
methods: Determination of strength.
Khan M.I., Alhozaimy A.M., 2011. Properties of natural pozzolan and its potential
utilization in environmental friendly concrete. Canadian J. Civ. Engin. 38(1), 71-
78.
Khayat K.H., 2000. Optimization and performance of air-entrained, self-consolidating
concrete. ACI Mater. J. 97(5), 526-535.
Kwan A.K.H., Chen J.J., 2013. Adding fly ash microsphere to improve packing
density, flowability and strength of cement paste. Powder Technol. 234(1), 19-
25.
Kwan A.K.H., Chen J.J., Fung W.W.S., 2012. Effects of superplasticizer on rheology
and cohesiveness of CSF cement paste. Adv. Cem. Res. 24(3), 125-137.
Kwan A.K.H., Wong H.H.C., 2008. Packing density of binder: part 2 - packing and

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

flow of OPC+PFA+CSF. Mater. Struct. 41(4), 773-784.

Lee S.T., Hooton R.D., Jung H.S., Park D.H., Choi C.S., 2008. Effect of limestone filler
on the deterioration of mortars and pastes exposed to sulfate solutions at ambient
temperature. Cem. Concr. Res. 38(1), 68-76.
Li L.G., Kwan A.K.H., 2015. Adding limestone fines as cementitious paste
replacement to improve tensile strength, stiffness and durability of concrete.
Cem. Concr. Compos. 60, 17-24.
Ling S.K., Kwan A.K.H., 2016. Adding limestone fines as cementitious paste
replacement to lower the carbon footprint of SCC. Constr. Build. Mater. 111,
326-336.
Ling S.K., Kwan A.K.H., 2018. Filler technology for low-carbon high-dimensional
stability concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 163, 87-96.
Lu J.X., Poon C.S., 2018. Improvement of early-age properties for glass-cement mortar
by adding nanosilica. Cem. Concr. Compos. 89, 18-30.
Markiv T., Sobol K., Franus M., Franus W., 2016. Mechanical and durability properties
of concretes incorporating natural zeolite. Arch. Civ. Mech. Engin. 16(4), 554-
562.
Mashaly A.O., Shalaby B.N., Rashwan M.A., 2018. Performance of mortar and
concrete incorporating granite sludge as cement replacement. Constr. Build.
Mater. 169, 800-818.
Mehta P.K., 2009. Global concrete industry sustainability. Concr. Int. 31(2), 45-48.
Nagrockienė D., Girskas G., 2016. Research into the properties of concrete modified
with natural zeolite addition. Constr. Build. Mater. 113, 964-969.
Nagrockienė D., Girskas G., Skripkiūnas G., 2017. Properties of concrete modified
with mineral additives. Constr. Build. Mater. 135, 37-42.
National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2018. National data: http://data.stats.gov.cn (in
Chinese).
Ng P.L., Kwan A.K.H., Li L.G., 2016. Packing and film thickness theories for the mix
design of high-performance concrete. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. A (App. Phy. &
Engin.) 17(10), 759-781.
Okamura H., Ouchi M., 2003. Self-compacting concrete. J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 1(1),
5-15.
Ramezanianpour A.A., Mousavi R., Kalhori M., Sobhani J., Najimi M., 2015. Micro
and macro level properties of natural zeolite contained concretes. Constr. Build.

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Mater. 101(1), 347-358.

Ranjbar M.M., Madandoust R., Mousavi S.Y., Yosefi S., 2013. Effects of natural
zeolite on the fresh and hardened properties of self-compacted concrete. Constr.
Build. Mater. 47, 806-813.
Rashidian-Dezfouli H., Afshinnia K., Rangaraji P.R., 2018. Efficiency of Ground
Glass Fiber as a cementitious material, in mitigation of alkali-silica reaction of
glass aggregates in mortars and concrete. J. Build. Engin. 15, 171-180.
SCC European Project Group, 2005. The European Guidelines for Self-Compacting
Concrete, BIBM, CEMBUREAU, EFCA, EFNARC and ERMCO, 2005, 63pp.
The Concrete Centre, 2013. Embodied carbon dioxide (CO2-e) of concretes used in
buildings. The Concrete Centre, UK.
Turner L.K., Collins F.G., 2013. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: A
comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Constr. Build.
Mater. 43, 125-130.
Usman M., Khan A.Y., Farooq S.H., Hanif A., Tang S., Khushnood R.A., Rizwan S.A.,
2018. Eco-friendly self-compacting cement pastes incorporating wood waste as
cement replacement - A feasibility study. J. Clean. Prod. 190, 679-688.
Valipour M., Yekkalar M., Shekarchi M., Panahi S., 2014. Environmental assessment
of green concrete containing natural zeolite on the global warming index in
marine environments. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 418-423.
Vejmelková E., Koňáková D., Kulovaná T., Keppert M., Žumár J., Rovnaníková P.,
Keršner Z., Sedlmajer M., Černý R., 2015. Engineering properties of concrete
containing natural zeolite as supplementary cementitious material: strength,
toughness, durability, and hygrothermal performance. Cem. Concr. Compos.
55(1), 259-267.
Wong H.H.C., Kwan A.K.H., 2008. Packing density of binder: part 1 - measurement
using a wet packing method. Mater. Struct. 41(4), 689-701.
Worrell E., Price L., Martin N., Hendriks C., Meida L.O., 2001. Carbon dioxide
emissions from the global cement industry. Annu. Rev. Energ. Environ. 26, 301-
329.

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Tables

Table 1 Chemical compositions of the OPC and SZ

Chemical composition OPC (%) SZ (%)

SiO2 22.92 62.87
Al2O3 7.41 13.46
Fe2O3 3.08 1.35
CaO 57.51 2.71
MgO 4.13 2.38
Loss on ignition 2.07 13.10
Soil content - ≤ 1.0
Water content - ≤ 1.5

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2 Mixture proportions of mortar mixtures

Mix no. Portland Superfine Fine Free Super-

(Z-SZ- cement zeolite aggregate water plasticizer
B/A-W/B) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)

Z-0-0.55-1.3 759.3 0.0 1093.2 315.7 7.2

Z-5-0.55-1.3 721.3 27.2 1093.2 315.7 7.7
Z-10-0.55-1.3 683.4 54.4 1093.2 315.7 8.2
Z-15-0.55-1.3 645.4 81.6 1093.2 315.7 8.7
Z-20-0.55-1.3 607.5 108.8 1093.2 315.7 9.2
Z-0-0.55-1.4 741.3 0.0 1067.2 331.9 7.0
Z-5-0.55-1.4 704.2 26.6 1067.2 331.9 7.5
Z-10-0.55-1.4 667.2 53.1 1067.2 331.9 8.0
Z-15-0.55-1.4 630.1 79.7 1067.2 331.9 8.5
Z-20-0.55-1.4 593.1 106.3 1067.2 331.9 9.0
Z-0-0.65-1.3 814.6 0.0 992.4 338.7 7.7
Z-5-0.65-1.3 773.9 29.2 992.4 338.7 8.3
Z-10-0.65-1.3 733.2 58.4 992.4 338.7 8.8
Z-15-0.65-1.3 692.5 87.6 992.4 338.7 9.3
Z-20-0.65-1.3 651.7 116.8 992.4 338.7 9.9
Z-0-0.65-1.4 794.0 0.0 967.2 355.5 7.5
Z-5-0.65-1.4 754.3 28.5 967.2 355.5 8.0
Z-10-0.65-1.4 714.6 56.9 967.2 355.5 8.6
Z-15-0.65-1.4 674.9 85.4 967.2 355.5 9.1
Z-20-0.65-1.4 635.2 113.8 967.2 355.5 9.6
Z-0-0.75-1.3 860.6 0.0 908.6 357.8 8.2
Z-5-0.75-1.3 817.6 30.8 908.6 357.8 8.7
Z-10-0.75-1.3 774.6 61.7 908.6 357.8 9.3
Z-15-0.75-1.3 731.5 92.5 908.6 357.8 9.9
Z-20-0.75-1.3 688.5 123.4 908.6 357.8 10.4
Z-0-0.75-1.4 837.6 0.0 884.3 375.0 7.9
Z-5-0.75-1.4 795.7 30.0 884.3 375.0 8.5
Z-10-0.75-1.4 753.8 60.0 884.3 375.0 9.0
Z-15-0.75-1.4 712.0 90.0 884.3 375.0 9.6
Z-20-0.75-1.4 670.1 120.1 884.3 375.0 10.1
Note: In the mix number, SZ, B/A and W/B are respectively the SZ content by volume, B/A
ratio by volume and W/B ratio by volume.

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Appendix
Table A.1 Results of flowability, cohesiveness and strength
Cement/
Mix no. (Z- Flow Flow 1.25 mm 28-day
strength
SZ- spread rate SSI strength
ratio
B/A-W/B) (mm) (mL/s) (%) (MPa)
(kg/m3/MPa)

Z-0-0.55-1.3 94.0 7.6 21.4 39.4 19.27

Z-5-0.55-1.3 116.0 14.5 23.1 52.3 13.79
Z-10-0.55-1.3 93.5 10.6 11.2 45.6 14.99
Z-15-0.55-1.3 59.5 10.2 6.6 41.6 15.51
Z-20-0.55-1.3 60.5 11.6 7.9 33.5 18.13
Z-0-0.55-1.4 142.5 21.5 62.8 34.8 21.30
Z-5-0.55-1.4 155.0 30.2 61.7 45.5 15.48
Z-10-0.55-1.4 151.0 26.2 36.5 38.2 17.47
Z-15-0.55-1.4 122.5 22.2 22.0 28.7 21.95
Z-20-0.55-1.4 115.5 20.1 32.5 25.6 23.17
Z-0-0.65-1.3 140.0 22.7 39.7 50.2 16.23
Z-5-0.65-1.3 172.5 29.0 38.9 57.9 13.37
Z-10-0.65-1.3 152.5 25.8 36.9 47.1 15.57
Z-15-0.65-1.3 127.5 23.5 34.7 44.8 15.46
Z-20-0.65-1.3 120.0 25.3 26.9 36.8 17.71
Z-0-0.65-1.4 201.0 34.6 86.5 44.9 17.68
Z-5-0.65-1.4 215.0 40.3 86.0 51.7 14.59
Z-10-0.65-1.4 198.0 33.8 69.8 39.8 17.95
Z-15-0.65-1.4 163.5 30.2 54.1 34.0 19.85
Z-20-0.65-1.4 160.5 29.0 36.3 30.6 20.76
Z-0-0.75-1.3 162.5 26.9 31.0 54.6 15.76
Z-5-0.75-1.3 176.0 36.8 30.0 68.0 12.02
Z-10-0.75-1.3 172.0 32.6 23.3 52.8 14.67
Z-15-0.75-1.3 156.5 27.4 17.3 43.6 16.78
Z-20-0.75-1.3 137.5 26.3 16.8 38.5 17.88
Z-0-0.75-1.4 206.0 46.3 82.3 52.3 16.02
Z-5-0.75-1.4 223.0 52.8 80.3 59.7 13.32
Z-10-0.75-1.4 205.0 46.3 54.6 44.5 16.94
Z-15-0.75-1.4 182.0 40.7 38.8 36.6 19.45
Z-20-0.75-1.4 172.5 34.4 35.7 34.0 19.71
Note: In the mix number, SZ, B/A and W/B are respectively the SZ content by volume, B/A
ratio by volume and W/B ratio by volume.

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table A.2 Results of packing density and WFT

Specific
Mix no. (Z- Excess
Packing Voids Water surface WFT
SZ- water
density ratio ratio area (m)
B/A-W/B) ratio
(m2/m3)
Z-0-0.55-1.3 0.699 0.431 0.461 0.031 413177 0.074
Z-5-0.55-1.3 0.706 0.416 0.461 0.045 441334 0.102
Z-10-0.55-1.3 0.707 0.414 0.461 0.047 469491 0.100
Z-15-0.55-1.3 0.702 0.425 0.461 0.037 497648 0.074
Z-20-0.55-1.3 0.701 0.427 0.461 0.035 525804 0.066
Z-0-0.55-1.4 0.699 0.431 0.497 0.066 413177 0.160
Z-5-0.55-1.4 0.706 0.416 0.497 0.080 441334 0.182
Z-10-0.55-1.4 0.707 0.414 0.497 0.082 469491 0.175
Z-15-0.55-1.4 0.702 0.425 0.497 0.072 497648 0.145
Z-20-0.55-1.4 0.701 0.427 0.497 0.070 525804 0.134
Z-0-0.65-1.3 0.700 0.429 0.512 0.084 457204 0.183
Z-5-0.65-1.3 0.713 0.403 0.512 0.110 488463 0.224
Z-10-0.65-1.3 0.714 0.401 0.512 0.112 519723 0.215
Z-15-0.65-1.3 0.709 0.410 0.512 0.102 550982 0.185
Z-20-0.65-1.3 0.705 0.418 0.512 0.094 582241 0.161
Z-0-0.65-1.4 0.700 0.429 0.552 0.123 457204 0.269
Z-5-0.65-1.4 0.713 0.403 0.552 0.149 488463 0.305
Z-10-0.65-1.4 0.714 0.401 0.552 0.151 519723 0.290
Z-15-0.65-1.4 0.709 0.410 0.552 0.141 550982 0.256
Z-20-0.65-1.4 0.705 0.418 0.552 0.133 582241 0.229
Z-0-0.75-1.3 0.705 0.418 0.557 0.139 496198 0.280
Z-5-0.75-1.3 0.722 0.385 0.557 0.172 530206 0.325
Z-10-0.75-1.3 0.725 0.379 0.557 0.178 564213 0.315
Z-15-0.75-1.3 0.717 0.395 0.557 0.162 598221 0.272
Z-20-0.75-1.3 0.710 0.408 0.557 0.149 632228 0.235
Z-0-0.75-1.4 0.705 0.418 0.600 0.182 496198 0.366
Z-5-0.75-1.4 0.722 0.385 0.600 0.215 530206 0.405
Z-10-0.75-1.4 0.725 0.379 0.600 0.221 564213 0.391
Z-15-0.75-1.4 0.717 0.395 0.600 0.205 598221 0.343
Z-20-0.75-1.4 0.710 0.408 0.600 0.192 632228 0.303
Note: In the mix number, SZ, B/A and W/B are respectively the SZ content by volume, B/A
ratio by volume and W/B ratio by volume.

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

23/7/2018

Figures

Figure 1 Particle size distributions of SZ, OPC and fine aggregate

Figure 2 Flow spread versus SZ content at various B/A ratio and W/B ratio

Figure 3 Flow rate versus SZ content at various B/A ratio and W/B ratio

Figure 4 1.25 mm SSI versus SZ content at various B/A ratio and W/B ratio

Figure 5 28-day cube strength versus SZ content at various B/A ratio and W/B ratio

Figure 6 Packing density and voids ratio versus SZ content at various B/A ratio

Figure 7 WFT versus SZ content at various B/A ratio and W/B ratio

Figure 8 Flow spread versus WFT at various B/A ratio

Figure 9 Flow rate versus WFT at various B/A ratio

Figure 10 1.25 mm SSI versus WFT at various B/A ratio

Figure 11 Cement/strength ratio versus SZ content at various B/A ratio and W/B
ratio

Figure 12 Cement/strength ratio versus strength level at various B/A ratio and W/B
ratio
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

100

80
Percentage passing (%) .

60
SZ OPC Fine
aggregate
40

20

0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle size (μm)

Figure 1 Particle size distributions of SZ, OPC and fine aggregate

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

B/A = 0.55, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.55, W/B = 1.4

B/A = 0.65, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.65, W/B = 1.4
B/A = 0.75, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.75, W/B = 1.4
300

250
Flow spread (mm)

200

150

100

50

0
0 5 10 15 20
SZ content (%)

Figure 2 Flow spread versus SZ content at various B/A ratio and W/B ratio
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

B/A = 0.55, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.55, W/B = 1.4

B/A = 0.65, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.65, W/B = 1.4
B/A = 0.75, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.75, W/B = 1.4
60

50

40
Flow rate (ml/s)

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20
SZ content (%)

Figure 3 Flow rate versus SZ content at various B/A ratio and W/B ratio
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

B/A = 0.55, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.55, W/B = 1.4

B/A = 0.65, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.65, W/B = 1.4
B/A = 0.75, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.75, W/B = 1.4
100

80
1.25 mm SSI (%)

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20
SZ content (%)

Figure 4 1.25 mm SSI versus SZ content at various B/A ratio and W/B ratio
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

B/A = 0.55, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.55, W/B = 1.4

B/A = 0.65, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.65, W/B = 1.4
B/A = 0.75, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.75, W/B = 1.4
80
28-day cube strength (MPa)

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20
SZ content (%)

Figure 5 28-day cube strength versus SZ content at various B/A ratio and W/B ratio
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

B/A = 0.55 B/A = 0.65 B/A = 0.75

B/A = 0.55 B/A = 0.65 B/A = 0.75
0.75 0.50
Packing density
Packing density

0.70 0.45

Voids ratio
Voids ratio

0.65 0.40

0.60 0.35
0 5 10 15 20
SZ content (%)

Figure 6 Packing density and voids ratio versus SZ content at various B/A ratio
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

B/A = 0.55, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.55, W/B = 1.4

B/A = 0.65, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.65, W/B = 1.4
B/A = 0.75, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.75, W/B = 1.4
0.6

0.5

0.4
WFT (m)

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20
SZ content (%)

Figure 7 WFT versus SZ content at various B/A ratio and W/B ratio
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

B/A = 0.55, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.55, W/B = 1.4

B/A = 0.65, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.65, W/B = 1.4
B/A = 0.75, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.75, W/B = 1.4
300

250
y = 250 (1 – e - 4.62x )
Flow spread (mm)

200 R2 = 0.870

150

100

50

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
WFT (m)

Figure 8 Flow spread versus WFT at various B/A ratio

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

B/A = 0.55, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.55, W/B = 1.4

B/A = 0.65, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.65, W/B = 1.4
B/A = 0.75, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.75, W/B = 1.4
60

50
y = 122 x
40
Flow rate (ml/s)

R2 = 0.912

30

20

10

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
WFT (m)

Figure 9 Flow rate versus WFT at various B/A ratio

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

B/A = 0.55, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.55, W/B = 1.4

B/A = 0.65, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.65, W/B = 1.4
B/A = 0.75, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.75, W/B = 1.4
100
y = a(x-b)2

80 a = 3700 – 3000 B/A

b = -0.42 + 0.78 B/A
1.25 mm SSI (%)

R2 = 0.709
60

B/A = 0.55 B/A = 0.65 B/A = 0.75

40

20

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
WFT (m)

Figure 10 1.25 mm SSI versus WFT at various B/A ratio

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

B/A = 0.55, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.55, W/B = 1.4

B/A = 0.65, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.65, W/B = 1.4
B/A = 0.75, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.75, W/B = 1.4
25
Cement/strength ratio (kg/m
3
/MPa)

20

15

10
0 5 10 15 20
SZ content (%)

Figure 11 Cement/strength ratio versus SZ content at various B/A ratio and W/B ratio
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

B/A = 0.55, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.55, W/B = 1.4

B/A = 0.65, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.65, W/B = 1.4
B/A = 0.75, W/B = 1.3 B/A = 0.75, W/B = 1.4
25
Cement/strength ratio (kg/m
3
/MPa)

20

17.5

15
15.0

Note: Underlined points 13.3

are those giving lowest 12.0
cement/strength ratios.
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
28-day cube strength (MPa)

Figure 12 Cement/strength ratio versus strength level

at various B/A ratio and W/B ratio