See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263810290

Fracture behaviour of concrete containing limestone fines

Article  in  Construction Materials · September 2013

DOI: 10.1680/coma.12.00041

CITATIONS READS

4 66

3 authors:

Belkacem Menadi S. Kenai

Saad Dahlab Blida 1 University, Algeria Saad Dahlab University
21 PUBLICATIONS   109 CITATIONS    109 PUBLICATIONS   2,188 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jamal M Khatib
Beirut Arab University University of Wolverhampton
222 PUBLICATIONS   3,421 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of new methodologies for improving NDT evaluation of concrete strength View project

length change of incineration bottom ash View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Belkacem Menadi on 26 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Construction Materials Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/coma.12.00041
Fracture behaviour of concrete containing Paper 1200041
Received 18/09/2012 Accepted 14/03/2013
limestone fines Keywords: concrete technology & manufacture/
Menadi, Kenai and Khatib sustainability/waste management & disposal

ice | proceedings ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Fracture behaviour of concrete

containing limestone fines
&
1 Belkacem Menadi PhD &
3 Jamal M. Khatib BEng, MSc, PhD
Senior Lecturer of Construction Materials, Geomaterials Laboratory, Professor of Construction Materials, Faculty of Science and
Civil Engineering Department, University of Blida, Blida, Algeria Engineering, University of Wolverhampton, UK
&
2 Said Kenai PhD
Professor of Construction Materials, Geomaterials Laboratory, Civil
Engineering Department, University of Blida, Blida, Algeria

1
2 3

The use of limestone fines as partial replacement of cement can lower the cost of concrete, protect the environment
by reducing carbon dioxide emissions and thus contribute towards sustainable development. The effect of
incorporating limestone fines on the mechanical and durability properties of mortar and concrete has been
thoroughly investigated. However, little research has been done so far on the fracture behaviour of mortar and
concrete beams containing limestone fines. In the present study, the effect of limestone as partial replacement of
cement on strength and fracture behaviour of mortar and concrete was investigated. This was carried out
experimentally by determining the load–deflection curves of concrete or mortar using the three-point flexural tests on
notched samples so that the material characteristics at rupture, such as the fracture energy GF and fracture toughness,
KI (stress intensity factor) for mode I of fracture could be deduced. The results showed that strength and fracture
parameters were reduced with the increase of limestone fines in cement for both notched mortar and concrete beams.

1. Introduction of LSF with Portland cement enhances the particle packing of

Using industrial waste in construction applications is advanta-
geous in that it reduces both the amounts of materials sent to
landfill and also the quantities of virgin materials required for
construction (Khatib, 2009). Concrete is the dominant material
used in construction and industrial by-products can be used to
replace cement or aggregates (Hadjsadok et al., 2012; Khatib
et al., 2008; Mangat et al., 2006). The use of fly ash, ground
granulated blast furnace slag and silica fume in the production
of concrete or other construction products is becoming very
common (Khatib and Mangat, 2002; Khatib et al., 2009a;
Siddique and Khatib 2010; Wild et al., 1995). Use of limestone
fines (LSF) as cement or sand replacement has become an
increasingly accepted practice in the concrete industry
throughout the world. Its use provides economic and environ-
mental advantages by reducing Portland cement production,
carbon dioxide emissions and waste deposits and contributes to
sustainable development of concrete (Baron and Douvre,
1987). The effect of LSF in cement on the fresh and hardened
properties of mortars or concretes has been widely studied by
many researchers. It has been reported that the incorporation
the cementitious system, improves the stability of the fresh
concrete and contributes to the early compressive strength
(Kenai et al., 2004; Khatib et al., 2009a; Shmidt, 1992; Soroka,
1976; Tsivillis et al., 2000). However, it is also recognised that
the use of LSF as cement replacement results in a systematic
decrease in later strength by dilution effect with increasing
amounts of LSF up to at least 30%, regardless of the age of
curing (Kenai et al., 2006). From the durability point of view,
it has also been reported (Gonzalez and Irassar, 1998; Kenai
et al., 2004) that the incorporation of 10 to 15% LSF can
significantly improve the durability of structures exposed to
aggressive environments, such as sulfate attack. On the other
hand, LSF addition exhibits poor chloride-ion permeability
performance in comparison with plain concrete (Kenai et al.,
2006; Ramezanianpour et al., 2009). The effect of inclusion of
LSF in crushed sand on fresh and hardened mortar and
concrete has also been a major research topic for many years.
It was found that replacing crushed sand with up to 12–18% of
LSF did not affect the strength performance of concrete
(Bertrandy and Chabernaud, 1971; Bonavetti and Irassar,

1
Construction Materials
1999; Chi et al., 2004; Kenai et al., 1999; Menadi et al., 2009,
2010; Ramirez et al., 1987).
There is little reported work on the effect of using LSF as
partial replacement for cement or sand on static fracture
parameters of mortar or concrete such as fracture energy (GF)
and fracture toughness (KI). These parameters have been
applied essentially to characterise the crack propagation of
concrete by several authors (Hillerborg, 1985). Fracture
energy usually increases with increasing aggregate size and
stiffness, and KI increases with increasing compressive
strength (Ellices et al., 1993). According to the results of a
limited study on the effect of the addition of LSF, the
fracture energy of crushed sand concrete was little influenced
by the type of fine aggregates and is slightly higher than that
of river sand concrete (Kim et al., 1997). However, brittleness
or the characteristic length (lch) has been found to decrease
with the increase in concrete strength. It should be noted that
the addition of pozzolanic materials such as fly ash was found
to improve the fracture properties of concrete (Lam et al.,
1998).
The aim of this study was to determine the effect of LSF as
cement replacement on the fracture parameters of mortars and
concretes. This was conducted on notched mortar or concrete
specimens using three-point bending tests which allow the
load–deflection curve to be determined.
2. Experimental programme
2.1 Materials
The cement used as reference in all mortars and concretes is an
ordinary Portland cement type CEMI 42?5 of a specific surface
area of 279?5 m2/kg. The LSF used as partial replacement of
cement were obtained from the cement factory limestone
Item
SiO2: %
Al2O3: %
Fe2O3: %
CaO: %
MgO: %
SO3: %
Insoluble residue: %
Loss on ignition: %
Free lime: %
Specific gravity: kg/m3
Specific surface area: m2/kg
Table 1. Chemical compositions and physical properties of cement
and limestone fines
2
Fracture behaviour of concrete
containing limestone fines
Menadi, Kenai and Khatib
quarry with a specific surface area of 410 m2/kg. The chemical
characteristics of the cement and limestone used are given in
Table 1. The cement was partially replaced with 0, 5, 10, 15
and 20% (by mass of cement) of LSF. The fine aggregate used
was river sand with maximum particle size of 4 mm. The coarse
aggregates were natural crushed limestone stones, having a
maximum size of 16 mm and a specific gravity of 2?57 kg/m3.
The mixture proportions, by weight, for mortars were 1 : 2
(cement : sand). For concrete mixtures, the proportions were
1 : 2?3 : 2?9 (cement : sand : coarse) by weight. Further details
about the concrete mixtures are given in Table 2. The letter in
the mixture code indicates whether it is a concrete (C) or
mortar (M) and the number in the mixture code indicates the
percentage of cement replaced with LSF. For example, mix
C10 indicates that it is a concrete mixture and 10% of cement
was replaced with LSF. All mixes were produced at a constant
water/cement (w/c) ratio of 0?50.
2.2 Specimens preparation and curing
Mortar prisms (40 mm 6 40 mm 6 160 mm) and concrete
prisms (70 mm 6 70 mm 6 280 mm) were cast following the
procedure given by the European Standards EN197.1 (BSI,
2011). The specimens were demoulded after 24 h and cured for a
period of 365 days under water at a temperature of 20 ¡ 2˚C.
During casting, a 2 mm thick metal sheet was incorporated into
the prepared moulds at mid-span of the specimen with different
notch lengths as shown in Figure 1. The sheets were then
removed after demoulding. The ratio of the notch length to the
depth (a/d) of the specimen adopted in this study was either 0?2 or
0?4 for all mortar and concrete specimens (Karihaloo et al., 2003).
Compressive strength was determined on 40 and 70 mm cubes
obtained from the broken halves of the mortar and concrete
bending tests, respectively. The compressive testing was con-
ducted according to EN 196-3 (BSI, 2005) for mortar specimens
and according to EN 12390-3 (BSI, 2009) for concrete specimens.
CEM I 42?5 Limestone fines (LSF)
21?53 1?78
5?57 0?79
3?24 0?34
66?87 54?3
1?08 0?2
– –
0?06 –
0?26 42?50
– –
3?10 –
350 410
Construction Materials Fracture behaviour of concrete
containing limestone fines
Menadi, Kenai and Khatib

Materials batch weight: kg/m3

Mixture code Cement Limestone fines Sand Coarse aggregate w/c ratio

C0 350 0 790 1020 0?50

C5 322?5 17?5 790 1020
C10* 315 35 790 1020
C15 297?5 52?5 790 1020
C20 280 70 790 1020

*Concrete mixture with10% limestone fines

Table 2. Mixtures proportions of concrete

2.3 Test procedure The stress intensity factor or the fracture toughness (KI) was
The measurement of the load–deflection curves for notched computed by the following formula proposed by Tada et al.
and un-notched specimens was achieved by using a closed-loop (1985).
servo-controlled testing machine, equipped with two loads cells pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
of 5 and 150 kN for mortar and concrete specimens, 2. K1 ~s p  aF ða=bÞ
respectively. Mid-span deflection of mortar and concrete
specimens was chosen as the controlling parameter in the where s is the stress calculated by
measurements. The loading rate was 0?02 mm/min. The
fracture energy (GF was calculated by the following simplified 3PS
s~
equation (Equation 1) 2 b3

W where P is the load and S is the span (Figure 1). The function
1. GF & F(a/b) is obtained from the empirical formula given elsewhere
bðd{aÞ
(Tada et al., 1985).
where W is the area under the load–deflection curve in N.m;
b(d 2 a) is the fracture area (m2); d, b and a are respectively, 3. Results and discussion
the height, the width of the specimen and the notch length. 3.1 Compressive and bending strength
The results of the compressive and bending strength at 1 year
p of water curing for mortar and concrete specimens are shown
in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. From these figures, it can be
b seen that the compressive and bending strengths were
d influenced by the incorporation of LSF as cement replacement.
a = (0,0.2,0.4) d
There was a systematic decrease in compressive and bending
s strength with the increase of LSF replacement for both mortar
and concrete specimens. The reductions were more noticeable
with the increase in limestone content. A reduction in
compressive strength of 2, 11, 17 and 22% were noted for
M5, M10, M15 and M20, respectively, in comparison with
control mortar (M0). A similar trend was observed for the
concrete specimens as shown in Figure 3, where a reduction in
compressive strength of 20% was observed for concrete
containing 20% LSF in comparison with the control (C0).
The same pattern may be seen for the bending strength as
(a) (b) shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. These results are in agreement
with results reported elsewhere (Kenai et al., 2004; Khatib
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the three-point bending test for et al., 2009b; Soroka 1976), where a decrease in strength at
notched prismatic beam: (a) mortar, (b) concrete long-term was noticed. This reduction of the long-term
strength with the increase of addition could be attributed to

3
Construction Materials Fracture behaviour of concrete
containing limestone fines
Menadi, Kenai and Khatib

60 Compressive 2.5
M0
Bending M5
50 2.0
M10
40 1.5 M15

Load: kN
Strength: MPa

M20
30 1.0

20 0.5

10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0
Mid-span deflection: mm
M0 M5 M10 M15 M20
(a)
Mortar mixtures

2.0
Figure 2. Compressive and bending strength for limestone cement M0
mortars at 365 days M5
1.5
M10
Load: kN

M15
the reduction in the quantity of cement and hence the 1.0
M20
reduction of potential cementing material (i.e. dilution effect).
The lower strength obtained when using LSF indicates that 0.5
larger proportions of these particles remained unreacted and
this may have resulted in a lower packing density. 0
–0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9
3.2 Load–deflection behaviour Mid-span deflection: mm
The load–deflection curves for mortar and concrete specimens (b)
with and without LSF are plotted in Figures 4 and 5 for two
different a/d ratios (i.e. a/d 5 0?2 and a/d 5 0?4). All deflection Figure 4. Typical load–deflection curves (P–d) under three-point
curves obtained from tests for un-notched mortar and concrete bending tests of different notched mortars specimen at 365 days:
specimens present a drastic change of the post peak load. (a) a/d 5 0?2, (b) a/d 5 0?4
However, load–deflection curves for notched mortars and
concrete specimens with and without LSF exhibit a smooth
and steady decline as the notch length increased. The
descending branch of the load deflection becomes steeper; the
50 Compressive
stiffness of the concrete beam diminishes with a large
45 deformation as the notch ratio a/d increases. Generally, it
Bending
40 can be seen from Figure 4 that the maximum load decreased
35 for all notched mortar specimen as the content of LSF was
Strength: MPa

30 increased for the different sizes of notches. The trend was

25 somewhat similar for concrete specimens (Figure 5), except
20 concrete mixtures C5 and C15, for which a comparable
15 maximum load compared to control concrete with a notch to
10 depth ratio of 0?2 was noted.
5
0
3.3 Fracture parameters
C0 C5 C10 C15 C20
Figure 6 shows the variation of the fracture energy (GF) of
Concrete mixtures mortar and concrete beams with and without LSF content for
the different notch ratios (a/d 5 0?0, 0?2 and 0?4). The fracture
Figure 3. Compressive and bending strength of various concrete energy was obtained by the experimental load–deflection
mixtures at 365 days curves and calculated from Equation 1 for both notched and
un-notched mortar and concrete specimens. As expected, a

4
Construction Materials Fracture behaviour of concrete
containing limestone fines
Menadi, Kenai and Khatib

5.0 500
C0 a/d=0.0
4.5 450
C5 a/d=0.2
4.0 400

Fracture energy: N/m

C10 a/d=0.4
3.5 350
C15
Load: kN

3.0 300
2.5 C20 250
2.0 200
1.5 150
1.0 100
0.5 50
0 0
M0 M5 M10 M15 M20
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Mid-span deflection: mm Mortar mixtures
(a) (a)

500 a/d=0.0
4.0 450
a/d=0.2
C0 400
3.5 Fracture energy: N/m 350
a/d=0.4
C5
3.0 300
C10
2.5 250
Load: kN

C15 200
2.0
C20 150
1.5 100
1.0 50
0.5 0
C0 C5 C10 C15 C20
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Concrete mixtures
(b)
Mid-span deflection: mm
(b)
Figure 6. Effect of limestone content on fracture energy of
Figure 5. Typical load–deflection curves (P–d) under three-point notched and unnotched specimens: (a) mortar, (b) concrete
bending tests of different notched concrete specimens at 365 days:
(a) a/d 5 0?2, (b) a/d 5 0?4
The highest fracture energy was obtained at 5% limestone
content. The incorporation of LSF as cement replacement at a
certain percentage (5%) improved the cohesion between cement
reduction of the fracture energy with the increase of fines
content is observed in Figure 6(a) for both notched and un-
notched mortar specimens. When LSF is added, it acts as a
diluent and the particles fines remain unreacted, so that the
bond between the cement matrix and the aggregates will
become more fragile and consequently facilitate crack propa-
gation. Hence, the fracture energy was reduced with the
increase of LSF content because of the presence of a weak link
of the interfacial transition zone (ITZ) as shown in Figure 7 for
mortar with 20% of LSF. This region is usually considered to
be the weakest region in mortar or concrete in terms of ITZ
mechanical properties and durability and consequently favours
the easy propagation of cracks.
Acc.V Spot Magn Det WD Exp 20 µm
15.0kv 3.0 1366x SE 17.7 1 mortar L20%
This tendency seems to be more pronounced for notched
specimens with higher fines content. For mortars with 20% of
limestone addition, a decrease in fracture energy of 33 and 40%
Figure 7. Scanning electron micrographs of fracture surface of
was noted for a/d ratios of 0?2 and 0?4, respectively, in
mortar with 20% limestone fines (M20) after hydration
comparison with mortar without LSF.

5
Construction Materials
paste and aggregate. Due to this improvement in cohesion, it
seems that the GF of the limestone concrete was slightly higher
than that of concrete control.
The use of LSF at a lower ratio (5%) had a more pronounced
positive effect due to the improvement of the packing of
particles (i.e filling voids between cement grains) and the
accelerated hydration due to the nucleation effect at early age
rather than the negative effect of dilution. It should be noted
that a similar trend was observed with the porosity test results
as the addition of 5% LSF gave the lowest porosity (Table 3).
Figure 6(b) shows that the increase in LSF did cause a
noticeable decrease in fracture energy for concrete specimens.
The fracture energy for concrete containing 5 and 20% LSF
was even higher than that of the control at a/d 5 0?2. For
a/d 5 0?4, there was a decrease in fracture energy for all
concretes containing LSF compared with that of the control.
However, increasing the LSF from 5 to 20% seems to have
slightly increased the fracture energy.
Figure 8 shows the variation of fracture toughness with LSF
content for different notched mortar and concrete specimens. The
fracture toughness values ranged from 620 to 709 kN/m3/2 and
515 to 735 kN/m3/2 for mortar mixtures with notch length ratios
of 0?2 and 0?4, respectively. There was a tendency for the fracture
toughness to decrease as LSF content increased for both notched
mortar specimens (Figure 8(a)). With the exception of the mortar
mixture with 5% LSF (notch to depth ratio of 0?2); the stress
factor intensity, KI was marginally more than that of mortar
specimens without LSF. This may be attributed to the fact that
the small amount of LSF that reacted at early strength enhanced
the cohesion between cement paste and aggregate fines in the
transition zone, and thereby increased the stress factor intensity
(KI). At higher LSF content, fracture toughness decreased
irrespective of the depth of the notch of the specimens. This
may be explained by the presence of a weak matrix interface. The
lowest stress factor intensity was noted in mortar specimens M20
with a/d ratio 5 0?4. The importance of the aggregate-cement
paste transition zone has been demonstrated by the use of smooth
aggregates (grain paraffination), which was found to lower the
values of KI by 40 to 60% (Prokopski and Halbiniak, 2000).
As shown in Figure 8(b), the fracture toughness of concrete
specimens with LSF was lower than that of concrete specimens
Limestone fines: % 0 5 10
Porosity: % 16?95 12?96 14?90
Table 3. Total porosity of mortar mixtures
6
Fracture behaviour of concrete
containing limestone fines
Menadi, Kenai and Khatib
without fines for the different notched beams with the
exception of the concrete specimen C5 for which an increase
in fracture toughness was observed. This was similar to the
results of mortar mixture M5 with notch length ratio of 0?2
(Figure 9(a)). However, increasing the LSF from 10 to 20%
seems to have increased the fracture toughness. This trend is
similar to that of fracture energy observed in Figure 6(b). The
fracture toughness values ranged from 620 to 1138 kN/m3/2
and 675 to 971 kN/m3/2 for concrete mixtures with a/d ratios of
0?2 and 0?4, respectively. Comparing the values of fracture
toughness results of concrete with mortars mixtures irrespec-
tive of the notch to length ratio, it can be seen that concrete
mixtures with and without LSF provide higher fracture
toughness (KI). The fracture toughness of concrete mixture
C5 with notch to length ratio of 0?2 was about 1?6 of that of
mortar mixture (M5). The same trend was noticed for concrete
specimens (C20) with higher notch, the stress intensity factor
was 1?80 of KI of mortar mixture M20. These differences in
fracture toughness may be attributed to the presence of coarse
aggregates in concrete which increase the toughness of the
matrix. The results agreed with the findings of other authors
(Baron, 1982), who reported an increase of the fracture
toughness of concrete in comparison with that of cement paste
and mortar.
The relative strength, relative fracture energy (GF) and relative
fracture toughness (KI) for notched limestone cement mortars
specimens as compared with that of the control mortar (M0)
are shown in Figure 10. In general, the relative fracture
parameters do not exceed those of the reference mortar for
all limestone contents, indicating that fracture energy and
stress intensity factor were reduced when LSF were added.
However, a slight increase was observed for the relative
fracture toughness (KI) values with 5% limestone addition for
a/d 5 0?2 and a comparable value is obtained for a/d 5 0?40.
Increasing LSF content beyond 10% in cement for both mortar
and concrete mixtures caused a decrease in relative strength
and fracture parameters compared with cement mortar without
LSF. The reduction of relative fracture characteristics with
increasing LSF as cement replacement shows clearly that LSF
have a brittle behaviour which favours the crack propagation.
It should be noted that the influence of the notch length on the
fracture parameters of mortar and concrete specimens is more
predominant than the effect of limestone replacement.
15 20 25 30
15?20 14?50 15?60 17?70
Construction Materials Fracture behaviour of concrete
containing limestone fines
Menadi, Kenai and Khatib

900 140 fc
a/d=0.2
Fracture toughness, KI: kN/m3/2

800 120 GF

Relative of fc, GF and KI

a/d=0.4
700 KI
100
600
80
500
60
400
300 40

200 20
100 0
0 M0 M5 M10 M15 M20
M0 M5 M10 M15 M20 Mortar mixtures
Mortar mixtures (a)

(a)
140
fc
1400 120 GF
a/d=0.2
Relative of fc, GF and KI
Fracture toughness, KI: kN/m3/2

100 KI
1200 a/d=0.4
80
1000
60
800
40
600
20
400
0
200 M0 M5 M10 M15 M20

0 Mortar mixtures
C0 C5 C10 C15
Concrete mixtures
(b)
Figure 8. Fracture toughness of mortars and concretes with
different notches
3.4 Relationship between fracture energy and
compressive strength
Figure 10 presents the fracture energy (GF) in terms of
compressive strengths for notched concrete beams. The
equation proposed by the CEB model (CEB-FIP Model
Code, 1991) is also plotted in the same figure. The CEB model
equation is as follows
:
3. GF ~6  fc0 7
From this figure, it can be seen that the relationship between
fracture energy (GF) and compression strengths (fc) obtained
from the experimenst are not in accordance with the trends
suggested by the CEB Model Code for a maximum aggregate
diameter dmax 5 16 mm. This latter underestimates the experi-
mental results and is considered as a lower bound for most
concretes. The prediction of fracture energy according to the
CEB Model Code is safe as the calculated values are smaller
than the experimental results. The CEB Model is related only
to strength and the maximum aggregate size and does not take
(b)
C20
Figure 9. Comparison of relative fc, GF, and KI of mortar for
different notches: (a) a/d 5 0?2, (b) a/d 5 0?4
into account the effect of cementitious addition. It should
be noted that the prediction is closer for specimens with
a/d 5 0?40.
4. Conclusion
Based on the limited experimental results of this investigation,
the following conclusions could be drawn.
& The compressive and bending strengths were noticeably
reduced with the increase of LSF in cement for mortar and
concrete specimens. However, the difference in the strength
of 0 and 5% LSF cement mortars and concretes was not
that significant.
& The load–deflection curves present drastic change of the
post-peak load for un-notched mortar and concrete speci-
mens. However, smooth and steady declines in the load–
deflection curves were noticed for notched mortar and
concrete specimens.
& The fracture energy was affected too much by the strength
of the interfacial transition zone, as the fines content
increased in cement, the fracture energy decreased for
mortar and concrete specimens.

7
Construction Materials
250
200
Fracture energy: N/m
150
100
50
0
0 10 20
Compressive strength: MPa
Figure 10. Variation of the fracture energy with compression
strength of concrete
& The fracture toughness in terms of the stress factor intensity
(KI) decreased with the increase of LSF for mortar and
concrete specimens.
& The reduction of fracture parameters with increasing LSF
content in cement means that the addition of LSF results in
smoother fractures which, in turn means a brittle material
behaviour during crack propagation.
& It is safe to calculate the fracture properties of concrete with
limestone additions according to the CEB Model.
& The addition of LSF at a lower content of 5% enhances the
strength and fracture characteristics. However, higher
content should be added with caution in applications
requiring higher strength and fracture properties.
REFERENCES
Baron J (1982) Resistance to crack propagation. Le béton
hydraulique. Presse de l’école nationale des ponts et
chaussées, Paris, pp. 317–333 (in French).
Baron J and Douvre C (1987) Technical and economical aspects
of the use of limestone filler additions in cement. World
Cement 18(3): 100–104.
Bertrandy R and Chabernaud JL (1971) Study of the influence of
calcareous fillers on concrete. Travaux Nos 437–438: 38–
52.
Bonavetti VL and Irassar EF (1999) The effect of stone dust
content in sand. Cement and Concrete Composites 24(3):
580–590.
BSI (2005) EN 196-3. Methods of testing cement, determination
of setting time and soundness. BSI, London, UK.
BSI (2009) EN 12390-3. Testing hardened concrete: compressive
strength of test specimens. BSI, London, UK.
BSI (2011) EN 197-1. Cement. Composition, specifications and
conformity criteria for common cements. BSI, London,
UK.
8
Fracture behaviour of concrete
containing limestone fines
Menadi, Kenai and Khatib
a/d=0.2
a/d=0.4
Model MC90 (max. diameter ( dmax) of
aggregates =16 mm)
30 40 50 60
CEB-FIP (1991) Euro-International Concrete Committee
Information Bulletin. Model Code 1990-Final draft.
Chi C, Wu Y and Riefler C (2004) The use of crushed dust
production of self-consolidating concrete (SCC). In
Recycling Concrete and Other Materials for Sustainable
Development (Liu TC and Meyer C (eds)). ACI
International, SP-219, MI, USA.
Ellices M, Planas J and Guinea GV (1993) Modeling cracking in
rocks and cementitious materials. In Fracture and Damage
of Concrete and Rock (Rosmanith HP (ed.)). E and FN
Spoon, London, UK pp. 3–33.
Gonzalez MA and Irassar EF (1998) Effect of limestone filler on
the sulfate resistance of low C3A Portland cement. Cement
and Concrete Research 28(11): 1655–1667.
Hadjsadok A, Kenai S, Courard L, Michel L and Khatib JM (2012)
Durability of mortar and concretes containing slag with
low hydraulic activity. Cement and Concrete Composites
34(5): 671–677.
Hillerborg A (1985) The theoretical basis of a method to
determine the fracture energy Gf of concrete. Materials and
Structures 18(106): 291–296.
Karihaloo BL, Abdalla HM and Xiao QZ (2003) Size effect in
concrete beams. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 70(7):
979–993.
Kenai S, Benna Y and Menadi B (1999) The effect of fines in
crushed calcareous sand on properties of mortar and
concrete. International Conference on Infrastructure
regeneration and rehabilitation, Sheffield (Swamy RN (ed.)).
Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, UK, pp. 253–261.
Kenai S, Soboyejo W and Soboyojo A (2004) Some engineering
properties of limestone concrete. Materials and
Manufacturing Process 19(5): 949–961.
Kenai S, Menadi B and Ghrici M (2006) Performance of
limestone cement mortar. Eighth CANMET/ACI
 Construction Materials
Internatioanl Conference on Recent Advances in Concrete
Technology, Montréal-Canada.
Kim JK, Lee CS and Park CK (1997) The fracture characteristics of
crushed limestone sand concrete. Cement and Concrete
Research 27(11): 1719–1729.
Khatib JM (2009) Introduction Chapter. In Sustainability of
Construction Materials (Khatib JM (ed.)). Woodhead
Publishing Limited, Cambridge, UK, pp. xiii–xviii.
Khatib JM and Mangat PS (2002) Influence of high temperature
and low humidity curing on chloride penetration in blended
cement concrete. Cement and Concrete Research 32(10):
1743–1753.
Khatib JM, Mangat PS and Wright L (2008) Sulphate resistance
of blended binders containing FGD waste. Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers – Construction Materials
161(3): 119–128.
Khatib JM, Kayali O and Siddique R (2009a) Strength and
dimensional stability of cement–fly ash–metakaolin
mortar. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) –
Materials in Civil Engineering 21(9): 523–528
Khatib JM, Menadi B and Kenai S (2009b) Effect of cement type
on strength development of mortars containing limestone
fines. In Excellence in Concrete Construction through
Innovation (Limbachiya ML and Kew HY (eds)). Taylor &
Francis, London, UK, pp. 227–232.
Lam L, Wong YL and Poon CS (1998) Effect of fly ash and silica
fume on compressive and fracture behaviors of concrete.
Cement and Concrete Research 28(2): 271–283.
Mangat PS, Khatib JM and Wright L (2006) Optimum utilisation
of flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) waste in blended binder
for concrete. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers – Construction Materials 159(3): 119–127.
Menadi B, Kenai S, Khatib JM and Ait Mokhtar A (2009) Strength
and durability of concrete incorporating crushed limestone
sand. Construction and Building Materials 23(2): 625–633.
View publication stats
Fracture behaviour of concrete
containing limestone fines
Menadi, Kenai and Khatib
Menadi B, Kenai S and Djeziri D (2010) Durable concrete with
waste crushed quarry sand. 37th IAHS World Congress on
Housing Science: ‘Design, Technology, Refurbishment and
Management of Buildings’, Santander, Spain, pp. 26–29.
Prokopski G and Halbiniak J (2000) Interfacial transition zone in
cementitious materials. Cement and Concrete Research
30(4): 579–583.
Ramirez JL, Barcena JM and Urreta JI (1987) Calcareous sand with
limestone fines and clay: effect on cement mortars. Materials
and Structures 20(3): 202–213.
Ramezanianpour AA, Ghiasvand E, Nickseresht I, Mahdikhani M
and Moodi F (2009) Influence of various amounts of
limestone powder on performance of Portland limestone
cement concretes. Cement and Concrete Composites 31(10):
715–720.
Shmidt M (1992) Cement with interground materials –
capabilities and environmental relief. Part 1 Zement-Kalk-
Grips 45(4): E87–E92.
Siddique R and Khatib JM (2010) Mechanical properties and
abrasion resistance of HVFA concrete. Materials and
Structures – RILEM 43(5): 709–718.
Soroka N (1976) Calcareous fillers and the compressive strength
of Portland cement. Cement and Concrete Research 6(3):
367–376.
Tada H, Paris PC and Irwin GR (1985) The Stress Analysis of
Cracks Handbook, 2nd edn. Paris Production Inc., St.
Louis.
Tsivilis S, Batis G, Chaniotakis E, Grigoriadis G and Theodossis D
(2000) Properties and behavior of limestone cement
concrete and mortar. Cement and Concrete Research 30(10)
1679–1683.
Wild S, Hadi M and Khatib JM (1995) The influence of gypsum
content on the porosity and pore size distribution of cured
PFA-lime mixes. Advances in Cement Research 7(26): 47–
55.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and stu-
dents. Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing
papers should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate
illustrations and references. You can submit your paper
online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.