Materials and Structures
DOI 10.1617/s11527-013-0232-0
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Influence of grinding method and particle size distribution
on the properties of Portland-limestone cements
E. Ghiasvand • A. A. Ramezanianpour •
A. M. Ramezanianpour
Received: 12 June 2013 / Accepted: 9 December 2013
Ó RILEM 2013
Abstract The benefits of using limestone as a partial
replacement of Portland cement (PC) are well estab-
lished in the literature. Economic and environmental
advantages by reducing CO2 emissions are well
known. This paper describes the influence of the
producing method (intergrinding or separate grinding)
and particle size distribution on properties of Port-
land-limestone cements (PLC). Experiments were
carried out on cement paste including normal consis-
tency, time of setting, and heat of hydration, on
cement mortar including compressive and flexural
strength, and potential alkali reactivity of aggregates,
and on concrete including compressive strength,
sorptivity, electrical resistivity, and rapid chloride
permeability. In this study, ten types of cements
including two types of PC, and eight types of PLC
were used. The results show that mechanical and
durability properties of PLC were not affected signif-
icantly by grinding method. In addition, the use of
cements with high fineness is not very effective on
improvement of durability properties.
E. Ghiasvand  A. A. Ramezanianpour (&)
Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: aaramce@aut.ac.ir
E. Ghiasvand
e-mail: ebrahim_gh_63@aut.ac.ir
A. M. Ramezanianpour
University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: amramez@yahoo.com
Keywords Intergrinding  Separate grinding 
Portland-limestone cement  Particle size
distribution  Blaine fineness  Durability
1 Introduction
The bulk of the cementitious binder used in concrete is
Portland cement (PC) clinker, the manufacture of
which is an energy-intensive process. Approximately
2 % of world energy is spent in this process [1].
Considering the annual production of 1.6 billion
tonnes of PC, the cement industry itself is responsible
for 7 % of the total CO2 emissions [2]. On the other
hand, the concrete industry is one of the major
consumers of natural resources. In order to reduce
energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and to increase
their production, cement plants produce blended
cements, comprised of supplementary cementations
materials (SCM) such as fly ash, slag, pozzolans, silica
fume, metakaolin, etc [2–4].
For example, during the last decades, production of
Portland-limestone cements (PLC) has rapidly
increased in the cement industry to achieve the
abovementioned goals. According to CEN, the use
of CEM II limestone cements increased from 15 % in
1999 to 31.4 % in 2004 and became the single largest
type of cement produced in Europe [5].
In the conventional process of cement production,
30–80 kWh/t specific energy is consumed in cement
grinding which equals 30 % of the total energy

consumption. Furthermore, approximately 60–70 %
of the total electrical energy used in a cement plant is
utilized for the grinding of raw materials, coal, and
clinker. As a result, a small gain in grinding efficiency
can have a large impact on the operating cost of a plant
[6, 7].
The cement industry typically uses ball-mill grind-
ing as the preferred method to reduce the size of
clinker in cement manufacturing [3]. Vertical roller
mill and High pressure grinding rolls [7, 8] have also
been used to grind cements. Recently, some research-
ers have used the jet mill grinding to produce finer
cements [9].
Blended cements can be produced by two different
methods, either by intergrinding of PC clinker, SCM,
and gypsum, or by blending the separately grinded PC
(clinker?gypsum) and SCM [4, 10–13].
A good understanding of the grinding technology is
an essential step in the development of a multi-
component cement. Whether separate grinding or
intergrinding is preferred depends on the type of SCM
used, economical considerations (energy consump-
tion), replacement levels, the necessary fineness, and
the required strength and durability properties of the
blended cement.
The main difference between intergrinding and
separate grinding of a multi-component cement is that
during intergrinding, the components interact with one
another. The physical interactions among the constit-
uents are mostly due to the relative difference in
grindability. These interactions can help or hinder the
grinding process, and influence the relative content of
each component in different size fractions and the
particle size distribution of the ground products.
As a result of these interactions, particle size
distribution (PSD) of interground blended cements is
different than that of separately ground cements.
Schiller and Ellerbrock, found that the PSD of any
constituent is greatly influenced by the grindability of
the others. A component which is harder to grind
becomes concentrated in the coarser fractions, while a
component which is easier to grind becomes concen-
trated in the finer fractions [14]. Particle size distri-
bution is vital with respect to the rheology and the
early age hydration process which determines the
properties of fresh concrete, such as water demand,
heat release, strength development and early age
volume change [15]. It has been shown that inter-
grinding requires less energy than separate grinding,
Materials and Structures
especially for the production of high-fineness products
[16]. Generally, despite the considerable effect PSD
and grinding method have on the early age properties
of cement-based materials, limited researches have
been performed and published about this subject,
especially about the durability aspects of concrete.
Accordingly, this paper aims to study the effects of
grinding method and PSD on the mechanical and
durability properties of PLC containing the same
percentage of 45-lm residue.
2 Experiments
2.1 Materials
The clinker used was an ordinary PC clinker. Chem-
ical and physical characteristics of the clinker, gyp-
sum, and limestone are shown in Table 1. These
materials were in accordance with EN 197-1 specifi-
cations. For example, the standard specifies that the
limestone should meet three requirements: (a) The
CaCO3 content should be greater than 75 %; (b) The
clay content, determined with Methylene blue adsorp-
tion test (MBA), should be less than 1.20/100 g; and
(c) the total organic carbon (TOC) content shall
conform to one of the following criteria:
– LL: shall not exceed 0.20 % by mass
– L: shall not exceed 0.50 % by mass [17].
The used limestone satisfied all these requirements.
In this study, an ordinary PC clinker, gypsum and
different amounts of limestone were combined to
obtain ten types of cements, including two types of PC,
and eight types of PLC. The PCs were prepared using
clinker and gypsum and PLCs were prepared using
clinker, gypsum, and limestone (5 and 10 % by weight
of binder).
Portland cements were produced by intergrinding
96 % clinker and 4 % gypsum, with 3,200 ± 100 and
4,000 ± 100 cm2/g Blaine fineness. For both cases,
the percentage of 45-lm residue was determined by
ALPINE Air Jet Sieve 200 LS-N, and this value was
considered as a criterion in categorizing PLC. The
percentage of 45-lm residue for PC with 3,200 ± 100
and 4,000 ± 100 cm2/g Blaine fineness, were
obtained to be 7 and 2.8 %, respectively. Portland-
limestone cements also were produced by two meth-
ods of intergrinding and separate grinding.
Materials and Structures

Table 1 Chemical and physical characteristics and grinding times are presented in Table 2. Also, the
Clinker Gypsum Limestone
particle size distributions of limestone and cements are
(C) (G) (L) presented in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively.
For all concrete mix designs, coarse aggregates
Calcium oxide (CaO) (%) 64.2 39.53 51.01 were crushed calcareous stone with a maximum size of
Silicon dioxide (SiO2) (%) 22.35 – 2.48 19 mm and fine aggregate was natural sand. The
Magnesium oxide (MgO) 2.05 0.64 2.46 coarse aggregates had a specific gravity and water
(%)
absorption of 2,510 kg/m3 and 1.90 %, respectively,
Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 4.71 0.7 1.55
(%)
and the fine aggregate had a water absorption of
Ferric oxide (Fe2O3) (%) 2.95 0.42 0.45
2.75 % and a specific gravity of 2,570 kg/m3.
Sulphate oxide (SO3) (%) 0.75 28.1 0.03
2.2 Mixture proportion
Potassium oxide (K2O) (%) 0.584 – 0.151
Sodium oxide (Na2O) (%) 0.185 – 0.196
The concrete production was carried out in a 50 L
Titanium oxide (TiO2) (%) 0.15 – –
mixer. The water-to-binder (w/b) ratio was 0.5 having
Phosphorus oxide (P2O5) (%) 0.05 – –
a constant total binder (cement?limestone) content of
LOI (%) 1.41 7.4 41.68
350 kg/m3. The Slump of concrete was kept constant
Free water (%) – 0.18 –
at 9 ± 2 cm. The mixture proportions for concrete
Combined water (%) – 7.13 –
specimens are summarized in Table 3.
SiO2?insoluble water (%) – 6.6 –
CaCo3 (%) – – 91.1
2.3 Testing procedure and specimen preparation
TOC (%) – – 0.09
MBA (g/100 g) – – 0.14
In this study, the amount of water necessary for the
Moisture content (%) – – 0.37 cements to have normal consistency was determined
Specific gravity (g/cm3) 3.15 2.31 2.68 according to ASTM C187 [19]. Then, the pastes
having normal consistency were used to determine the
In the separate grinding method, PLC with different setting time (According to ASTM C191) [20]. The
limestone contents were produced by grinding PC and heat of hydration of cements was determined accord-
limestone separately, then blending them uniformly; ing to ASTM C186 [21] at 1, 3, 7 and 28 days.
however, in the intergrinding method, they were To determine the compressive and flexural
produced by intergrinding clinker, gypsum, and lime- strength, cement mortars were prepared with a
stone. In both methods, the process of grinding was water:cement:sand ratio of 0.5:1:3 by mass. These
continued until the content of 45-lm residue reached 7 mortars were cast into 40 9 40 9 160 mm3 molds.
and 2.8 %, respectively. After being cured at 20 ± 1 °C and a relative
The Portland and PLCs were designated according humidity (R.H.) of 90 % for 24 h, the specimens
to the PSD (C coarse PSD, F fine PSD) and grinding were demoulded and cured in saturated limewater at
method (I intergrinding, S separate grinding). 20 ± 1 °C, followed by the strength tests according to
To produce cements, the materials were crushed to EN 196-1 [22].
2-mm maximum size by a jaw crusher before feeding The potential expansion due to alkali–silica reac-
to the mill. The grinding process was carried out in a tion was evaluated with an accelerated test method
one-compartment laboratory-type ball mill of 20-kg (ASTM C 1567) [23]. For this purpose, known highly
raw mix capacity. The grinding time was recorded for reactive siliceous limestone sand from Shahriar Dam
each mixture, which is directly related to energy in Iran was used as AAR reactive aggregate. Three
consumption. 25 9 25 9 285 mm3 mortar bars were cast for each
The particle size distribution of the cements was mix. The mortar mixtures had an aggregate-to-
measured by laser diffraction (HORIBA’s LA-300). cementitious materials ratio of 2.25:1 and a water-to-
Also, Blaine fineness values were determined accord- cementitious materials ratio of 0.47. Immediately after
ing to ASTM C 204 [18]. Limestone, cements, and casting, the specimens were taken into a moist room at
their designations, grinding methods, fineness values, 23 ± 2 °C and covered with a plastic sheet. They were
 Materials and Structures

Table 2 Limestone and cements produced and their properties

Cement type Designation Components Grinding Fineness values Specific Time of
method gravity grinding
45-lm Blaine x0 (lm) (g/cm3) (min)
residue (%) (by fineness
alpine (cm2/g)
apparatus)

Limestone L (C) – – 7 7,844 22.05 2.68 70

L (F) 2.8 9,419 18.05 163
Portland cement (PC) PC (CI) 96 % C Intergrinding 7 3,176 24.4 3.12 50
PC (FI) ?4%G Intergrinding 2.8 3,995 20.22 85
Portland-limestone PLC5 (CI) 95 % PC Intergrinding 7 3,276 24.59 3.1 41
cement (PLC) PLC5 (FI) ?5%L 2.8 4,141 19.87 67
PLC5 (CS) Separate 7 3,409a 23.81 51a
PLC5 (FS) grinding 2.8 4,266a
19.69 89a
PLC10 (CI) 90 % PC Intergrinding 7 3,719 22.77 3.07 48.5
PLC10 (FI) ? 10 % L 2.8 5,981 21.08 144
PLC10 (CS) Separate 7 3,643a 23.65 52a
PLC10 (FS) grinding 2.8 4,537a
19.29 92.8a
C coarse, F fine, I intergrinding, S separate grinding
a
The Blaine fineness and time of grinding related to separately ground cements were calculated by weighted mean of the ingredients
to reach the content of 45-lm residue to 7 and 2.8 %

Fig. 1 Particle size distribution curves for limestone and PC

demolded 24 ± 2 h after casting and preconditioned

for a further 24 h in water preheated to 80 ± 2 °C.
After immersion in hot water, the lengths of these
mortar bars were measured as initial lengths, and the
mortar bars were subsequently transferred to 1 M
NaOH solution of 80 ± 2 °C. The lengths of these
mortar bars were periodically measured for 28 days.
After casting, concrete test specimens were
vibrated on a vibrating table to remove entrapped
air. They were then covered with a wet towel for 24 h
and cured in laboratory conditions. Then, they were Fig. 2 Particle size distribution curves for PC and PLC
Materials and Structures

Table 3 Mix proportions of concrete the samples by the four-point Wenner array probe
Mix w/b Concrete composition (kg/m ) 3 technique. The probe array spacing used was 40 mm.
ratio The resistivity measurements were taken at four
Cement Water Coarse Fine quaternary longitudinal locations of the specimen.
aggregate aggregate
The rapid chloride permeability test was conducted
PC (CI) 0.5 350 175 935 849 in accordance with ASTM C-1202 [25] at 28, 90 and
PC (FI) 0.5 350 175 935 849 150 days. Two concrete cylindrical specimens with
PLC5 (CI) 0.5 350 175 933.7 847.5 100 mm diameter and 50 mm thickness conditioned
PLC5 (FI) 0.5 350 175 933.7 847.5 according to the standard were subjected to a 60-V
PLC5 (CS) 0.5 350 175 933.7 847.5 potential for 6 h. The total charge passed through the
PLC5 (FS) 0.5 350 175 933.7 847.5 concrete specimens was determined and used to
PLC10 (CI) 0.5 350 175 931 845.5 evaluate the chloride permeability of each concrete
PLC10 (FI) 0.5 350 175 931 845.5 mixture.
PLC10 (CS) 0.5 350 175 931 845.5
PLC10 (FS) 0.5 350 175 931 845.5 3 Results and discussion

demolded and cured in saturated limewater at
23 ± 2 °C to prevent possible leaching of Ca(OH)2.
Concrete cubes of 100 9 100 9 100 mm3 dimen-
sion were cast for compressive strength. They were
tested for compressive strength after 7, 28 and 90 days
of water curing.
The Sorptivity test was conducted in accordance
with BS EN-480-5:1997 [24] at 28, 90, and 150 days.
The sorptivity coefficient (S) was measured on
100 mm concrete cube specimens, which were dried
in a 50 °C oven for 14 days. After mass stabilization,
the specimens were coated with epoxy resin only on
their lateral surfaces in order to ensure uniaxial water
absorption.
The specimens were rested on rods to allow free
access of water to the surface, and the tap water level
was kept no more than 5 mm above the base of the
specimen. The mass of the specimens were measured
after 0, 3, 6, 24 and 72 h of water absorption. The
sorptivity coefficient (S) was obtained using the
following expression:
Q=A ¼ c þ St0:5
where Q is the amount of water adsorbed; A is the cross
section of specimen in contact with water; t is the time
(second); c is a constant coefficient; and S is the
sorptivity coefficient of the specimen (m/s0.5).
The electrical resistivity meter (Resipod Resistivity
Meter) was used to measure the surface resistivity at
the ages of 7, 28, 90 and 150 days. Saturated concrete
cylinders (100 9 200 mm2) were used at each test
age. The electrical resistivity test was carried out on
3.1 Particle size distribution and fineness values
of cements
Particle size distributions of limestone and cements
are presented in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. Also,
fineness values including Blaine fineness, 45-lm
residue (%) By Alpine apparatus, and position
parameter (x’) for all of the cements are expressed in
Table 2.
The position parameter is defined as the equivalent
spherical diameter which 38.6 % by mass of the
material is coarser than that. It therefore characterizes
the fineness of the cement. The Blaine fineness of
cement is increased considerably when the position
parameter x0 is decreased. A study of Figs. 1 and 2, and
Table 2, leads to the following conclusions:
– PC with 4,000 cm2/g Blaine fineness had a signif-
icantly finer PSD than PC with 3,200 cm2/g Blaine
fineness. As shown in Table 2, x0 in PC (F) was
less than that of PC (C). In other words, with
increasing PC fineness, x0 reduced from 24.4 to
20.22.
ð1Þ
– Generally, PSD of cements containing the same
percentage of 45-lm residue, was not affected
significantly by grinding method, especially for
PLC containing 5 % limestone.
– PLC containing up to 10 % limestone (produced
by two methods of grinding) and PC had approx-
imately the same PSD.
– It is obvious that increasing the grinding time leads
to increasing the energy consumption of produc-
tion. As shown in Table 2, grinding time for PLC
 Materials and Structures

containing the same percentage of 45-lm residue, Table 4 Water demand and setting time of cements
which were produced by separate grinding Cements Water Setting time (min)
(PLC5&10 (C&FS)), was rather similar to Port- demand (%)
land cement (PC (C&FI)). But, grinding time for Initial Final
PLC produced by intergrinding (PLC5&10 PC (CI) 22 190 275
(C&FI)) considerably increased with increasing PC (FI) 22.3 175 255
limestone content and decreasing percentage of PLC5 (CI) 23.1 180 260
45-lm residue. This could be due to agglomeration PLC5 (FI) 23.6 165 250
of limestone particles which reduces the efficiency PLC5 (CS) 22.2 185 265
of the mill. The negative effect of the agglomer- PLC5 (FS) 22.7 170 250
ation phenomenon on the grinding process is more PLC10 (CI) 23.4 185 270
apparent when cement is finer and the materials are PLC10 (FI) 23.9 170 255
interground. Research has shown that the extent of
PLC10 (CS) 22.5 190 270
agglomeration depends on the specific character-
PLC10 (FS) 22.8 170 260
istics of the materials to be ground, the fineness of
the cement particles, etc. [6].
grains of the same size, because clinker grains require
For example, the grinding time for coarse and fine
more of the lubrication water [14].
intergrinding PLC, increased 18 and 115 %, respec-
The study of Irassara et al. [28] has shown that
tively when the limestone content increased from 5 to
substitution of 24 % limestone in cements results in a
10 %. Hence, based on the above mentioned findings,
reduction of 1 % in water demand, and increasing of
it is concluded that the intergrinding method for
fineness leads to an increase of 1 % in water demand.
production of PLC containing more than 5 % (with the
In Table 4, the results show that finer cements had a
same residue on the 45 lm) is uneconomical and thus
shorter initial or final setting time for the same level of
not recommended.
limestone; however, the effect of method of grinding
According to the Iranian National Standard (ISIRI
on setting time was not significant.
4220-2005) and the European Standard (EN 197-1-
The results also indicate that the setting time of
2000), using up to 20 and 35 % limestone for PLC is
PLCs was slightly shorter than that of PC. Results for
allowable, respectively [26, 27]. Therefore, due to
setting time obtained from earlier studies [28–30] are
agglomeration of limestone particles, in order to
inconsistent, showing an increase or decrease in
produce high quality PLC, use of grinding aids is
setting time. According to Irassara et al. [28] incor-
vital, particularly for the intergrinding method.
poration of limestone causes an increase of w/c
(dilution effect) and the initial setting time could be
3.2 Normal consistency and setting time delayed, but limestone particles may participate in
of cements shorter bridges of hydration products, causing no
significant changes in the setting time (±10 min).
The experimental results of normal consistency and Moir [31] points out that in modern milling systems
setting time of the cement pastes are shown in Table 4. equipped with high efficiency separators, the particle
For all cements, the water demand values increased size distributions are steeper than with conventional
with increasing fineness, while the effect of method of separators. This narrow particle size grading may
grinding on normal consistency was not significant. result in increased bleeding and delays in initial
Also, the water demand of PLCs was similar to PC. setting time. The inclusion of up to 5 % limestone
According to Schiller and Ellerbrock [14], water broadens the particle size grading, offsetting these
demand is composed of three fractions: low proportion disadvantages.
of chemical water needed to form the initial hydration The standard specifications of ASTM C 595 [32]
products, a second proportion needed to lubricate the and C 1157 [33] limit the initial setting time to a
initial hydration products, and a large amount of water minimum 45 min and final setting time to a maximum
to lubricate the surfaces of the cement grains. Lime- of 420 min. As seen from Table 4, all cement types
stone grains demand less water than reactive clinker met these requirements.
Materials and Structures
3.3 Heat of hydration of cements
According to results of the heat of hydration of the
cements shown in Fig. 3, it can be observed that using
PLC caused a reduction in the amount of heat released.
This finding has been previously confirmed by other
researchers when limestone was introduced by blend-
ing or intergrinding [12, 28]. Nevertheless, in some
researches, PLC containing 5 % limestone showed
increase in the heat released [34]. This may be due to
the fact that at low replacement levels (lower than
5 %), the limestone particles may also act as nucle-
ation sites and increase the rate of reaction of cement,
whereas at higher levels, the dilution effect is dom-
inant and the heat of hydration is decreased. In this
research due to low replacement of limestone (up to
10 %), the dilution effect is not dominant.
As shown in Fig. 3, finer cements hydrated faster
and released large amounts of heat at early ages.
Moreover, the effect of intergrinding and separate
grinding on this parameter was similar.
3.4 Compressive and flexural strength of mortars
Figures 4 and 5 show the compressive and flexural
strength values at 1, 3, 7, and 28 days for PLC and PC,
respectively. As expected, the compressive and flex-
ural strength values of all mortar specimens increased
with curing time and increasing fineness of cements.
For example, the 28 day compressive strength of
PLC10 (FI) was 11 % higher than that of PLC10 (CI).
These results also indicate a good linear correlation
between the compressive and flexural strengths (for
example, for PC (CI): fc0 ¼ 6:25ff0  0:36; R2 ¼ 0:98).
Fig. 3 Heat of hydration of
PC and PLC
In addition, for a similar residue on the 45 lm
sieve, in most of the cases, it can be said that no
significant difference in the compressive strength was
observed between mortars prepared with interground
and separate grinding cements.
It is known that in mortars containing limestone, the
compressive and flexural strength decreases with
increasing amount of limestone. The reduction in
strength is attributed to a clinker dilution effect. The
dilution effect is a consequence of the replacement of a
part of cement by the same quantity of limestone. The
increase in the amount of limestone involves a
decrease in the amount of cement and, consequently,
an increase in the effective w/c ratio. For example, in
PLC containing 10 % limestone with w/b ratio of 0.5,
the actual w/c ratio is 0.55.
Ramezanianpour et al. [4] have shown that in PLC,
up to 10 % limestone replacement does not result in a
significant reduction of strength. A similar trend is
observed in this study. In other words, PLC mortars
containing up to 10 % limestone provide competitive
strength with PC mortars. For example, in coarse and
fine cements, the highest value of compressive
strength at 28 days was 46.6 and 51.3 MPa corre-
sponding to PC (CI) and the PLC5 (FI) mixtures,
respectively, whereas the minimum was 43.3 and
48.1 MPa corresponding to PLC10 (CS) and PLC10
(FS) mixtures, respectively.
3.5 Alkali aggregate reaction
The expansion of mortar bars due to alkali–silica
reaction was measured as a percent of the original
length, and the results are shown in Fig. 6. The
 Materials and Structures

Fig. 4 Compressive strength of PC and PLC Fig. 5 Flexural strength of PC and PLC

results show that PLC slightly reduced the expansion

compared to PC. For example, the PC (CI) exhibited
an expansion of 0.274 % at 14 days, but PLC10 (CI)
reduced the expansion to around 0.24 %. This may
be attributed to the lower alkali content of PLC
compared to PC. As shown in Fig. 6, it can be
observed that all specimens had an expansion higher
than the allowable value (according to ASTM
C1567). Also, the expansion of mortars decreases
with increasing fineness of the cement. Moreover,
statistical analysis shows that the expansion of Fig. 6 AAR expansion of mortar bars
mortars prepared with interground cement was
slightly lower than those prepared with separately
ground cements. compressive strength of PLC concretes containing up
to 10 % limestone as opposed to PC concrete is
attributed to the filler effect and heterogeneous
3.6 Compressive strength of concrete nucleation. In addition, compressive strength of spec-
imens prepared with interground cement was slightly
The compressive strength development in the PC and higher than those prepared with separately ground
PLC concretes is plotted in Fig. 7. As expected, the cements.
compressive strength of all concrete specimens The maximum compressive strength in concrete
increased with the period of curing and with increasing specimens at 90 days was 48 MPa corresponding to
the fineness. Results of previous studies have shown the PLC10 (FI) mixture whereas the minimum com-
that PLC concretes have compressive strength com- pressive strength was 42.25 MPa corresponding to the
parable to PC concretes [4]. Observing no reduction in PLC5 (CS) mixture.
Materials and Structures
Fig. 7 Compressive strength of concrete
3.7 Sorptivity of concretes
Table 5 shows the influence of the fineness and
grinding method on the sorptivity of concretes
containing different amounts of limestone (0 and
10 %) at the age of 28, 90 and 150 days. The results
indicate that with increasing fineness decreased the
sorptivity coefficient.
Also, the increase of the curing period decreased
the sorptivity significantly. For example, the sorptivity
coefficient of PC (CI) at age of 150 days was 22 %
less than that at 28 days. Furthermore, PC and PLC
concretes had similar sorptivity coefficient, approxi-
mately. As shown in Table 5, sorptivity coefficient of
specimens prepared with interground cement was
slightly lower than those prepared with separately
ground cements, especially at early ages. Previous
researches indicated that in PLC concretes containing
more than 10 % limestone, the sorptivity content
increases considerably compared to the PC concretes;
however, PLC concretes containing less than 10 %
limestone have sorptivity equal or less than PC
concretes [35–37]. The decrease or increase of sorp-
tivity content is attributed to the filler effect,
Table 5 Sorptivity coefficient (S) of PC and PLC concretes
(10-6) (m/s0.5) at various ages
Cements 28 days 90 days 150 days
PC (CI) 7.1 5.75 5.52
PC (FI) 6.85 5.55 5.32
PLC10 (CI) 7.15 5.8 5.55
PLC10 (FI) 6.9 5.65 5.37
PLC10 (CS) 7.25 5.85 5.57
PLC10 (FS) 7 5.68 5.35
heterogeneous nucleation, and the dilution effect. In
PLCs, the filler effect and heterogeneous nucleation
react opposite of the dilution effects. For this reason,
there is an optimum limestone replacement for PLCs.
For lower values, properties of PLC are better than PC
and vice versa.
3.8 Electrical resistivity of concretes
The corrosion-resisting performance of concrete is
influenced by its electrical resistivity, which refers to
the resistance an electrical charge faces while passing
through concrete. The increased electrical resistivity of
concrete hinders the movement of electrons from the
anodic to the cathode regions, and thereby retards the
propagation of the corrosion process. The results of
Polder’s investigation [38] show that there is a linear
relationship between electrical resistivity and probabil-
ity of corrosion in concrete. Also, Ramezanianpour et al.
[39] reported that there is a good relationship between
electrical resistivity and penetration of chloride ion.
Results obtained from electrical resistivity tests (as
shown in Table 6) indicate that the electrical resistiv-
ity increased with increasing fineness. For example, at
150 days, the highest value of electrical resistivity was
15.2 kX cm for the PLC10 (FI) mixture whereas the
minimum was 13.0 kX cm for the PC (CI) mixture.
Further, statistical analysis shows that no significant
difference existed between specimens prepared with
interground and separately ground cements, in terms
of electrical resistivity.
3.9 Rapid chloride ion permeability of concretes
The results for the chloride penetration, measured in
terms of the electric charge passed through the
specimens in coulombs, obtained at the ages of 28,
90, and 150 days are presented in Table 7. In PC and
 Materials and Structures

Table 6 Electrical resistivity of PC and PLC concretes – Particle size distribution (PSD) of cements con-
(kX cm) at various ages taining the same percentage of 45-lm residue, was
Cements 7 days 28 days 90 days 150 days not affected significantly by grinding method,
especially for PLC containing 5 % limestone.
PC (CI) 7.2 13 11.5 8.7 – In PLC, the negative effect of the agglomeration
PC (FI) 7.75 14.5 14.3 9.2 phenomenon on the grinding process is more
PLC10 (CI) 7.6 12.5 11.9 9 apparent when cement is finer and the materials are
PLC10 (FI) 8.1 15.2 14.3 9.8 interground.
PLC10 (CS) 7.4 12.6 11.7 9.1 – Generally, mechanical and durability of properties
PLC10 (FS) 8 15.1 14 9.7 were not affected significantly by grinding
method.
– In all cements, reduction in the residue on the
Table 7 Rapid chloride ions permeability of PC and PLC 45 lm sieve, in addition to accelerating the early
concretes (Coulomb) at various ages age reactions, was effective in reducing the times
Cements 28 days 90 days 150 days of initial and final set.
– It can be concluded that the PLCs with less than
PC (CI) 3,264 2,641 2,235 10 % limestone have properties comparable to
PC (FI) 2,813 2,309 2,117 ordinary PC.
PLC10 (CI) 3,125 2,530 2,197
PLC10 (FI) 2,780 2,217 2,049
PLC10 (CS) 3,170 2,515 2,212
PLC10 (FS) 2,752 2,232 2,035
References

1. Italcementi Group (2005) Crushing and grinding training

PLC concretes, the diminution of the residue on the
45 lm sieve from 7 to 2.8 % reduced the rapid
chloride ion permeability significantly. In this study,
PLC concretes exhibited slightly lower permeability
values compared to PC concrete. Ramezanianpour
et al. [4] reported that replacing 15 % of PC with
limestone at w/b = 0.55 had an insignificant effect on
chloride resistance. Also, Ghrici et al. [40] showed that
the penetration of chloride ion increased in concretes
containing 15 % limestone.
The increase of the curing period significantly
decreased the rapid chloride ion permeability, yet it
was not sufficient to reduce this parameter to less than
2,000 C. According to the ASTM C1202, all of the
mixtures are categorized as moderate chloride perme-
ability at all ages. Also, in PLC concretes with a
similar residue on the 45 lm sieve, the rapid chloride
ion permeability was rather similar, regardless of the
grinding method.
4 Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from the
results obtained in this investigation:
course
2. Mehta PK (2002) Greening of the concrete industry for
sustainable development. Concr Int 24(7):23–28
3. Malhotra VM, Mehta PK (2002) High-Performance, high-
volume fly ash concrete: materials, mixture proportioning,
properties, construction practice, and case histories. Sup-
plementary Cementing Materials for Sustainable Develop-
ment, Ottawa
4. Ramezanianpour AA, Ghiasvand E, Nickseresht I, Mah-
dikhani M, Moodi F (2009) Influence of various amounts of
limestone powder on performance of Portland limestone
cement concretes. Cem Concr Compos 31(10):715–720
5. Hooton RD, Nokken M, Thomas MDA (2007) Portland-
limestone cement: state-of-the-art report and gap analysis
for CSA A 3000. Cement Association of Canada
6. Katsioti M, Tsakiridis PE, Giannatos P, Tsibouki Z, Mari-
nos J (2009) Characterization of various cement grinding
aids and their impact on grindability and cement perfor-
mance. Constr Build Mater 23(5):1954–1959
7. Altun O, Benzer H, Dundar H, Aydogan NA (2011) Com-
parison of open and closed circuit HPGR application on dry
grinding circuit performance. Miner Eng 24(3&4):267–275
8. Madlool NA, Saidur R, Hossain MS, Rahim NA (2011) A
critical review on energy use and savings in the cement
industries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15(4):2042–2060
9. Sun H, Hohl B, Cao Y, Handwerker C, Rushing TS, Cum-
mins TK, Weiss J (2013) Jet mill grinding of Portland
cement, limestone, and fly ash: impact on particle size,
hydration rate, and strength. Cem Concr Compos 44:41–49
10. Opoczky L, Tamas F (2002) Multicomponent composite
cements. In: Ghosh SN (ed) Advances in cement
Materials and Structures
technology: chemistry, manufacture, and testing. Tech
Books International, New Delhi, pp 559–594
11. Erdogdu K, Tokyay M, Türker P (1999) Comparison of
intergrinding and separate grinding for the production of
natural pozzolan and GBFS-incorporated blended cements.
Cem Concr Res 29(5):743–746
12. Difen LU, Longzhong TAO, Ning LI, Haipeng HU (2005)
Grinding characteristics of multi-component cement-based
material. J Wuhan Univ Technol 20(1):129
13. Binici H, Aksogan O, Cagatay IH, Tokyay M, Emsen E
(2007) The effect of particle size distribution on the prop-
erties of blended cements incorporating GGBFS and natural
pozzolan (NP). Powder Technol 177(3):140–147
14. Schiller B, Ellerbrock H-G (1992) The grinding and prop-
erties of cement with several main constituents. Zement-
Kalk-Gips 45(7):325–334
15. Hawkins P, Tennis P, Detwiler R (2003) The use of lime-
stone in Portland cement: a state-of-the-art review. Portland
Cement Association, Skokie
16. Tsivilis S, Kakali G, Alamanou T (1991) A comparative
study of intergrinding and separate grinding of cement raw
mix. Zement Kalk Gips 2:74–78
17. EN 197-1 (2000) Cement: part 1. Composition, specifica-
tions and uniformity criteria for common cements. Euro-
pean Committee for Standardization
18. ASTM C204 (1996) Standard test method for fineness of
hydraulic cement by air permeability apparatus. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken
19. ASTM C187 (2004) Standard test method for normal con-
sistency of hydraulic cement. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken
20. ASTM C191 (2004) Standard test methods for time of set-
ting of hydraulic cement by Vicat needle. ASTM Interna-
tional, West Conshohocken
21. ASTM C186 (2005) Standard test method for heat of
hydration of hydraulic cement. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken
22. BS EN 196-1 (1995) Methods of testing cement, part 1.
Determination of strength
23. ASTM C1567 (2004) Standard test method for determining
the potential alkali–silica reactivity of combinations of
cementitious materials and aggregate (accelerated mortar-
bar method). ASTM International, West Conshohocken
24. BS EN-480-5 (1997) Tests methods, determination of cap-
illary absorption. British Standards Institution
25. ASTM C1202 (2005) Standard test method for electrical
indication of concrete’s ability to resist chloride ion pene-
tration. ASTM International, West Conshohocken
26. ISIRI 4220 (2005) Lime-Portland cement: specification.
Institute of Standards and Industrial Research of Iran,
Tehran
27. EN 197-1 (2000) Cement: part 1. Composition, specifica-
tions and conformity criteria for common cements
28. Irassara EF, Violini D, Rahhal VF, Milanesi C, Trezza MA,
Bonavetti VL (2011) Influence of limestone content, gyp-
sum content and fineness on early age properties of Portland
limestone cement produced by inter-grinding. Cem Concr
Compos 33(2):192–200
29. Elkhadiri I, Diouri A, Boukhari A, Aride J, Puertas F (2002)
Mechanical behaviour of various mortars made by com-
bined fly ash and limestone in Moroccan Portland cement.
Cem Concr Res 32(10):1597–1603
30. Vuk T, Tinta V, Gabrovsek R, Kaucic V (2001) The effects
of limestone addition, clinker type and fineness on proper-
ties of Portland cement. Cem Concr Res 31(1):135–139
31. Moir GK (1994) Minor additional constituents: permitted
types and benefits. In: Dhir RK, Jones MR (eds) Euroce-
ments: Impact of ENV 197 on concrete construction. E &
FN Spon, London, pp 37–56
32. ASTM C595 (2005) Standard specification for blended
hydraulic cements
33. ASTM C1157 (2003) Standard performance specification
for hydraulic cement
34. Albeck J, Sutej, B (1991) Characteristics of concretes made
of Portland limestone cement. Beton 41(5):240–244 (in
German, English trans: Lauer SU available from PCA
library)
35. Fagerlund G (2005) Imaginable effects of limestone filler on
chloride transport. Report TVBM-7187, Division of
Building Materials, Lund Institute of Technology. Lund
University. Lund, Sweden
36. Gonzalez MA, Rahhal VF, Bonavetti VL, Donza H, Irassar
EF (1999) Effect of curing on early chloride diffusion of
filler cement concrete. In: Swamy RN (ed) Proceedings of
the international conference on infrastructure regeneration
and rehabilitation, improving the quality life through better
construction: a vision for the next millennium. Sheffield
Academic Press, Sheffield, pp 37–148
37. Persson B (2001) Assessment of the chloride migration
coefficient, internal frost resistance, salt frost scaling and
sulphate resistance of self-compacting concrete: with some
interrelated properties. Report TVBM-3100, Division of
Building Materials, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund
University. Lund, Sweden
38. Polder RB (2009) Critical chloride content for reinforced
concrete and its relationship to concrete resistivity. Mater
Corros 60(8):623–630
39. Ramezanianpour AA, Pilvar A, Mahdikhani M, Moodi F
(2011) Practical evaluation of relationship between concrete
resistivity, water penetration, rapid chloride penetration and
compressive strength. Constr Build Mater 25(5):2472–2479
40. Ghrici M, Kenai S, Said Mansour M (2007) Mechanical
properties and durability of mortar and concrete containing
natural pozzolana and limestone blended cements. Cem
Concr Compos 29(7):542–549