4.6 Article

Report of RILEM TC 267-TRM phase 2: optimization and testing of the robustness of the R3 reactivity tests for supplementary cementitious materials

Journal

MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES
Volume 55, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1617/s11527-022-01928-6

Keywords

Supplementary cementitious materials; Reactivity test; Robustness study; Heat release; Bound water

Funding

  1. EPFL Lausanne
  2. Slovenian Research Agency [P2 -0273]
  3. Engineering and Physical Science Research (EPSRC) Council [EP/R001642/1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents an interlaboratory test to determine the most reliable and relevant test method for the chemical reactivity of Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs). The test procedure was improved and precision statements were developed. The robustness of the final test methods was determined through an interlaboratory study.
The results of phase 1 of an interlaboratory test, coordinated by the RILEM TC 267-TRM Tests for Reactivity of Supplementary Cementitious Materials showed that the R-3 (rapid, relevant, reliable) test method, by measurement of heat release or bound water, provided the most reliable and relevant determination of the chemical reactivity of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), compared to other test methods. The phase 2 work, described in this paper aimed to improve the robustness of the test procedure and to develop precision statements for the consolidated test procedure. The effect of the pre-mixing and mixing conditions, and the impact of the mix design on the test method robustness were assessed and fixed for optimal conditions to carry out the R-3 heat release test. The effect of the drying step was evaluated to define the R-3 bound water test procedure in more detail. Finally, the robustness of the consolidated final test methods was determined by an interlaboratory study to define the precision statements.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available