POWDER

TECHNOLOGY
ELSEVIER P o w d e r T e c h n o l o g y 83 (1995) 245-252

Effects of particle size distribution, surface area and chemical

composition on Portland cement strength
Y.M. Zhang ~, T.J. Napier-Munn
Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, University of Queensland, Isles Road, Indooroopilly, Qld., 4068 Australia
Received 4 May 1994; revised 12 December 1994

Abstract

The fineness of a Portland cement and its chemical composition are the key factors in determining cement strength
characteristics. This paper describes a study of the relationship between cement particle size distribution and surface area,
and the effects of size distribution, surface area and chemical composition on concrete strength. A new correlation between
particle size distribution and surface area has been established and models which include the size distribution and chemical
composition as factors have been developed to predict cement strength based on a large data base generated from industrial
surveys. These models are useful in optimizing clinker grinding by simulation. The relationship between the cement compressive
strength determined by the concrete mix and mortar test methods is also discussed.

Keywords: Cement strength characteristics; Particle size distribution; Surface area; Chemical composition; Clinker grinding

I. Introduction (ii) in the cement industry, the fineness of the cement

The most important property of cement is its setting
strength in concrete, and cement quality is assessed
and controlled by measuring its strength under standard
conditions. It is well known that the compressive strength
of cement increases with fineness, or specific surface
area, and that for equal surface area, cements with a
narrow particle size distribution have a higher strength
than those with a wide size distribution [1-9]. The size
distribution of cement produced in clinker grinding
processes can now be predicted with some confidence
using population balance comminution and classification
models [11-13]. The possibility therefore exists of op-
timizing cement production using process simulation
procedures. However, in order to obtain true process
optimization, it would be desirable to employ as the
optimization criterion an economic property such as
strength, rather than a solely process property such as
the size distribution or surface area of the powder. To
achieve this, two issues must be addressed:
(i) the chemical composition of the cement is a major
determinant of its setting strength [10], and must be
incorporated in the simulation models; and
Present address: Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd, 152-158 St. George's
Terrace, Perth, WA 6000, Australia.
is usually expressed not as a size distribution but by
surface area. (Indeed, clinker grinding processes are
often monitored and controlled by measuring the prod-
uct surface area off-line using a simple air-permeability
procedure such as the Blaine test.) It would therefore
be desirable to model the relationship between size
distribution and surface area.
A review of the literature and current manufacturing
processes showed that these relationships are not well
understood, and few attempts have been made to
integrate them to predict setting strength. In addition,
it was apparent that two different methods were in
common use for the measurement of compressive
strength, and it was thought desirable to determine
correlations between the two, so that results from
either could be incorporated in the optimization
process.
This paper describes the empirical quantification of
these relationships, and in particular the development
o f models of concrete setting strength in terms of
particle size (alias surface area) and chemical com-
position. The work is based on a large quantity of
experimental data covering a wide range of cement
types and sources, and is therefore believed to be of
general applicability.

0032-5910/95/$09.50 © 1995 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved

SSDI 0 0 3 2 - 5 9 1 0 ( 9 4 ) 0 2 9 6 4 - P
246 Y.M. Zhang, T.J. Napier-Munn / Powder Technology 83 (1995) 245-252

2. Data collection The other model was proposed by Sumner et al. [6],
in which the cement product surface area, SSA, can
144 sets of particle size distribution (PSD) and as- be calculated by the equation:
sociated surface area data were collected from surveys
conducted at four industrial cement plants in Australia
6 (wiF~
SSA= z5 ~ \~-6] (m2/kg) (3)
[26]. F r u r types" of cement were involved, identified as i--1

type A, type C, type ACSE and white cement, and

where wi is the weight percentage in size fraction i, F
varying in chemical composition and size distribution.
is the surface shape factor (between 1.1 and 1.15), di
The data were used to evaluate existing models which
is the geometric mean size of particle size fraction i
correlated PSD to surface area, and then to develop
(cm), p is the apparent particle density (kg/m3), and
a new relationship between PSD and surface area. The
n is the number of size fractions.
PSD of all samples was determined using a CILAS
The surface areas of each of the present 144 data
laser diffraction particle size analyzer, and the surface
sets were calculated by Eqs. (1) and (3) respectively
area of these samples was determined by the standard
from the measured PSD. These calculated surface areas
air permeability method [14].
are plotted against the measured surface areas in Figs.
50 data sets of cement surface area, PSD, chemical
1 and 2. It is clear from these figures that there are
composition and compressive strength determined by
systematic deviations between the observed surface area
the concrete mix test method over three types of cement
and that predicted by these two models. The reasons
were also collected from one industrial site. These data
for the deviation are not known, but the most likely
were used to investigate the effects of composition and
are size distribution, which was determined by different
PSD (or surface area) on the concrete strength. In
addition another 71 sets of compressive strength data
were obtained using two standard test methods [15,16]
(the so-called mortar and concrete mix tests, which are
in common use around the world) over four types of
cement. These data were used to develop the correlation
between the two concrete strength test methods.
3oo

3. Relationship between particle size distribution

I
and surface area

3.1. Evaluation of existing models

/ I I I I

0 100 200 300 400 500

Previous studies of the relationship between the Observed SSA (m2/kg)
particle size distribution and surface area of cement Fig. 1. Observed vs. predicted surface area (based on Eq. (1)).
have led to the development of two simple models
reported to be successfully applied in industry. One is
that developed by Kuhlmann [17], which was defined 500
as:

Sm = 807 + 1.20,,
where Om is the measured surface area (cm2/g), and
Sm is the surface area calculated from Eq. (2) (cm2/g):

Sm= 6 ~ L AQi(xi ' xi + 1)

(1)

(2)
<

i
'00

3oo

200
I
pi-lXm
where p is the cement density (g/cm3),Xm is the geometric 1oo
mean size of xi and x~÷l (cm), AQ~(x~, x~+l) is the
difference of the cumulative mass distribution of the I I I ~ I

i,h and i + 1TM particle size (%), and n is the number 0 100 200 300 400 500
of size fractions. This model was based on three types Observed SSA (m2/kg)
of cement, 45F, 35F and 55, manufactured in Germany Fig. 2. Observed vs. predicted surface area (based on Eq. (3); shape
[17]. factor, F = 1.15).
 Y.M. Zhang, T.J. Napier-Munn / Powder Technology 83 (1995) 245-252
instruments, or a limitation of the database used in
the original model development.
3.2. Development of a new model
Since these models were found not to fit the present
data base, it was necessary to establish a new correlation
between the surface area and particle size distribution
determined by the CILAS analyzer. This was done
using linear regression based on the same 144 data
sets available. The expression obtained is:
Os = 0.874Ss - 42.74
SD 0.01874 8.462
R 2 = 0.942; SE = 21.87; N = 144
and
Xi = ( (Xh2"~-Xj2)4(Xh "~-Xj) ) l/3
where Os is the observed surface area (m2/kg), Ss is
the surface area (m2/kg) calculated by a formula given
by Herdan [18] in terms of a harmonic mean size xi
(Eq. (6)), x, and xj are the upper and lower size of
a size interval (cm), p is the density of the material
(kg/m3), w i is the weight fraction of size i, SD is the
standard deviation of a coefficient, R 2 is the coefficient
of determination, SE is the standard error of the
regression equation, and N is the number of data sets
used in the regression.
Fig. 3 shows the observed surface area plotted against
the corresponding predicted surface area calculated
from Eq. (4). It can be seen that the model gives a
good prediction of surface area from the observed
particle size distribution. The wide range of cement
types and sources in the data base used to fit the model
500
.a~ 400-
v
o
o 200.
if) .
100 -
0 , , ,
0 100 200
Observed Surface Area (m2 / kg)
Fig. 3. O b s e r v e d vs. p r e d i c t e d s u r f a c e a r e a ( b a s e d on Eq. (4)).
247
indicates that it may have more general applicability
than Eqs. (1) and (3). The model has been successfully
used in the simulation of clinker grinding processes
[12,13].
4. Correlation between concrete strength, cement
fineness and chemical composition - previous work
Although the concrete strength increases with cement
specific surface area, it has been found that the fineness
of the cement is more effective at the early ages
(4) (1-3 d) than at longer periods (28 d) [5,10,19]. The
reason for this is that the amount of hydration product
formed at the beginning of hardening depends primarily
on the magnitude of the solids surface area upon which
the mix water can act [5].
Troxell et al. [20] found that for a range of specific
surface areas, an increase of 1% in surface area results
approximately in a 2% increase in 7 d strength and a
1% increase in 28 d strength.
(6) Since cements with equal specific surface area may
differ in their particle size distribution, the specific
surface area is not an unambiguous criterion of fineness.
It may have the same value for large average particle
size and wide particle size distribution as for a smaller
average size and narrow distribution. Research into the
strength behaviour of particle size fractions, based on
cement produced in Germany, has shown that the 0-3
/,m fraction achieved a particularly high 1 d strength
and that the 3 - 2 5 / , m fraction achieved the highest 90
day strength. The coarsest fraction (25-50/zm) attained
the lowest strength up to an age of 28 d, and only
after 90 d did this fraction attain approximately the
same strength as that attained by the 0-3 pm fraction
[211.
Investigations of the strength of mixtures of different
particle size fractions showed the initial strength to be
higher when the proportion of 0-3/~m was increased.
Conversely, for attaining a higher 28 d strength, a higher
proportion of 3-25 /~m was necessary [5]. Apart from
these qualitative indications, it seems that no quanti-
tative correlation between the particle size distribution
of a cement product and the corresponding concrete
strength has been published.
It is well known that four main chemical compounds
exist in cement. They are tricalcium silicate (C3S),
dicalcium silicate (C_.2S),tricalcium aluminate (C3A) and
tetracalcium aluminoferrite (C4AF).
In general, the silicates C3S and C2S are the most
important compounds, responsible for the strength of
hydrated cement paste, and their combined content
0 usually averages about 72%. However, cements relatively
300 400 500 higher in C3S gain strength more rapidly than those
higher in C2S, even though the strength at later ages
(with continued moist curing) may be less. The presence
248 Y.M. Zhang, T.J. Napier-Munn I Powder Technology 83 (1995) 245-252

80 used by Knofel was applied in this study to check

C3S whether the relationship was suitable for the data
70 collected. Unfortunately, it was found that the cor-
relation between the 28 d strength determined from
~ 60
the 50 data sets available in the present work and F28
~ 50 was poor. Fig. 5 shows the relationship, and Eq. (8)
is the least squares straight line fitted to the data.
~ ~0
28D = 0.4895 F28 - 64.15 (8)
SD 0.1234 25.11
~- 20 R 2= 0.247; SE = 3.129; N = 50
~ 10 C~ where 28D is the 28 d compressive strength (MPa).
Although the linear correlation coefficient (R = 0.50)
7 28 90 180 360
is statistically significant, the scatter is large and it was
thought that a more appropriate characteristic could
Age (days)
be found to represent composition. After a number of
Fig. 4. Development of strength of pure compounds (Taylor [22]). options were investigated, the term FCH was defined
as;
of C3A in cement, the content of which is 10-11% in
ordinary Portland cement, contributes greatly to strength FCH = C3S + CoS + C3A- C4AF (9)
only at very early ages (1 d). C4AF is present in small The correlation between strength and FCH is shown
quantities, approximately 9-10% in ordinary cement. in Fig. 6 and Eq. (10):
It does not affect the strength significantly [10,20,22,23].
It was found that the effects of chemical compounds 50
on the strength for finely ground cements operate more
rapidly than in coarse cements [20]. The development
of compressive strength in pastes of each of the pure
four compounds is given in Fig. 4. 40
H,~ ~ , , m ~
Based on cement manufactured in Germany, Knofel
[24] developed a correlation between the four major
chemical constituents and 28 d strength characteristics. ~ ~ B i a •
This enabled the 28 d strength of cement to be predicted 30 ~ o o m° []
in advance from its known chemical composition. The []
strength characteristic, F28, was first defined as:
F28(%) = 3C3S + 2C2S + C3A- C4AF (7) 20 I i
190 200 210 220
The strength characteristic F28 was then correlated by
F28 (%)
regression to the 28 d compressive strength. A good
agreement on 28 d strength between the predicted and Fig. 5. F28 vs. 28 d strength (based on Eq. (8)).
measured for both laboratory and industrial cements
was reported [24].

5. Prediction of cement strength

In order to develop a general correlation for cement

strength, it was first necessary to identify an appropriate
characteristic describing chemical composition, and then W ra "~v m

to incorporate this with particle size terms to generate []

the equation(s) for strength.

20
5.1. A descriptor for chemical composition 62 64
I

66
I I

68 70
I I

72 74

The correlation between the four major chemical FCH

constituents and the 28 d strength characteristic F28 Fig. 6. FCH vs. 28 d strength (based on Eq. (10)).
 Y.M. Zhang, T.J. Napier-Munn / Powder Technology 83 (1995) 245-252 249

28D = 0.7603 F C H - 16.95 (10) 50

S
SD 0.08 5.537
R 2= 0.652; SE = 2.128; N = 50

This correlation is significantly better than that for

F28, in terms of R 2 and the standard error. The range
of F C H is also greater, making it a more robust char-
i°- I 1 ~ II-

acteristic. The remaining scatter is due to the influence

of other variables such as PSD, which will now be
described.
20 I I I ! !

5.2. A model for the prediction of strength 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

The multi-linear regression program, L R E G M B , writ-
ten by Kojovic [25], was used to determine the best
regression for cement strength as a function of com-
position (FCH) and particle size. Several descriptions
of particle size were trialled, including percent in a
given size fraction, and the two parameters of the
R o s i n - R a m m l e r distribution. L R E G M B orders the var-
ious equations tested according to statistical criteria
and permits the best to be selected.
24
Predicted 28-Day Strength (MPa)
Fig. 9. Predicted vs. observed 28 d strength (based on Eq. (13)).
The best descriptors of size turned out to be the
percent of material lying in a given size fraction. Several
were tested:
% - 31xm, - 4/~m, - 8/zm, - 16/xm, - 24/~m,
- 32/xm, - 24 + 3/xm, - 12 + 4txm, - 48 + 24~m,
- 24 + 12/xm and + 48/xm

Correlations were developed for three common strength

criteria, the 3 d (3D), 7 d (7D) and 28 d (28D) strengths.
204
20- " ./'_ I The plots of observed and predicted values for the
best regression equations, Eqs. (11)-(13), are shown
in Figs. 7-9:

3D = 0.3659 F C H + 0.5577 $8 - 26.87 (11)

2 SD 0.05727 0.07145 3.437

8 R2=0.814; S E = 1.307; N = 5 0

12 14 16 18 20 22 24 7D = 0.6476 FCFI + 0.4868 $8 - 36.01 (12)

Predicted 3-Day Strength (MPa) SD 0.06962 0.08686 4.178
Fig. 7. Predicted vs. observed 3 d strength (based on Eq. (ll)).
R2=0.831; S E = 1.589; N = 5 0
4O 28D = 0.5564 F C H + 0.3049 $ 3 2 - 28.05 (13)
SD 0.06245 0.04211 4.141
R 2 = 0.835; SE = 1.479; N = 50

where $8 is the cumulative passing size of 8 /zm in

cement product (%); $32 is the cumulative passing size
of 32/xm in cement product (%); F C H is the chemical
d. 20 compounds characteristic (%); 3D is the 3 d strength
determined by concrete mix test (MPa); 7D is the 7
d strength determined by concrete mix test (MPa); and
10
28D is the 28 d strength determined by concrete mix
test (MPa).
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
From Eqs. (11)-(13) it is clear that the strength in
Predicted 7-Day Strength (MPa)
the early days (3 d and 7 d) is significantly affected
Fig. 8. Predicted vs. observed 7 d strength (based on Eq. (12)). by the - 8 /~m size fraction whilst the 28 d strength
250 Y.M. Zhang~ T.J. Napier-Munn / Powder Technology 83 (1995) 245-252

is strongly related to the - 3 2 /xm size fraction at the 35

same chemical composition.

5.3. Incorporation of surface area into the strength

prediction
25 .4 A~ -

Surface area was then included in the regression as

an alternative to size fraction. It was found that an
increase of surface area (SSA) in general increases the
strength for both early days (3 d and 7 d) and later
days (28 d). This conclusion agrees with the observations 8 15
of many previous researchers. The resulting regression 15 20 25 30 35

equations are given below, and plots of the observed P r e d i c t e d 7 - D a y S t r e n g t h (MPa)

versus predicted results are given in Figs. 10-12. Fig. 11. Predicted vs. observed 7 d strength (based on Eq. (15)).

3D = 0.2726 F C H + 0.04698 S S A - 18.34 (14)

45
SD 0.05991 0.005493 3.271
R 2= 0.833; SE = 1.239; N = 50

7D = 0.5855 F C H + 0.03818 S S A - 28.84

SD 0.0785 0.007199 4.286
(15)
t
R 2 = 0.823; SE = 1.624; N = 50

28D = 0.4714 FCH + 0.04231 S S A - 12.7

SD 0.07925 0.007267 4.327
(16) 25 It
25
•
tJ; ° ,

R 2 = 0.798; SE = 1.639; N = 50
Eqs. (11)-(13) therefore provide predictions of strength
as a function of composition and particle size, and Eqs.
(14)-(16) as a function of composition and surface
area. The predictive capabilities of the two sets of
equations are not significantly different. Surface area
and size can thus substitute for each other in terms
of predictive power.
24
22 .
30
•
35
,
40 45
P r e d i c t e d 2 8 - D a y S t r e n g t h (MPa)
Fig. 12. Predicted vs. observed 28 d strength (based on Eq. (16)).
6. Correlation of strength determined by two testing
methods
Two standard methods are in common use for testing
the compressive strength of cement. They are the
concrete mix test (also called the cylinder test) and
the mortar test (also called the ISO/CEN mortar test).
Although the mortar test has the advantage of re-
quiring less labour and a smaller cement sample com-
pared with the concrete mix test, the concrete mix
testing values are, in general, more accepted by the

},8
20
..,y. ". customers than those obtained by the mortar test.
However, no correlation between the strength results
determined by the two standard methods has apparently
~ 16 yet been reported in the open literature. It was thought
to be useful to establish the correlation so as to permit
the prediction of cement strength to be made according
to either definition.
A total of 71 data sets recorded by the laboratory
8 10 I I I I I I at one cement plant over four types of cement (type
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 A, type B, type C and type ACSE) were therefore
P r e d i c t e d 3 - D a y S t r e n g t h (MPa) collected and used to develop a correlation between
Fig. 10. Predicted vs. observed 3 d strength (based on Eq. (14)). the strength results determined by the two testing
 Y.M. Zhang, T.Z Napier-Munn / Powder Technology 83 (1995) 245-252 251

methods. The correlation is given in Eq. (18). The
predicted concrete mix strength calculated from Eq.
(18) is plotted against the regressed results in Fig. 13.
STNmtx=0.679 STNmo,t,r +0.114 D A Y - 4 . 4 9 5
SD 0.0269 0.03704 0.8617
R2=0.956; SE=2.137; N = 7 1
where STNmiX is the strength value determined by the
concrete mix test (MPa), STNmort,r is the strength value
determined by the mortar test (MPa), and DAY is the
time (d).
A further 12 samples were collected over three types
of cement (type A, type ACSE and type B), and these
samples were tested at the same laboratory using both
concrete mix and mortar tests, at three different setting
times, providing 36 new data points. These independent
results were used to evaluate the model. The plot of
observed and predicted values using the model (Eq.
(18)) is shown in Fig. 14. It is obvious from Figs. 13
and 14 that the test results are strongly correlated and
that a simple linear expression (Eq. (18)) can be suc-
50
40.
cessfully used to predict the cement strength determined
by the concrete mix test from the mortar test results
for any of the four types of cement used in the study.
(18)
7. Conclusions
Previous models correlating cement particle size dis-
tribution to the specific surface area developed by
Kuhlmann and Sumner et al. [6] were applied to a
large data base (144 data sets) collected in four Aus-
tralian industrial sites, and it was found that these
models were not adequate for the data base collected.
The reason for this may be the different methods of
determining the size distribution, or a limitation of the
data base used in the original model developments. A
new correlation between the particle size distribution
and surface area was then developed based on the
present large data base (Eqs. (4)-(6)).
The effects of cement particle size distribution, size
fraction, surface area and chemical composition on the
strength have been investigated. A total of 50 sets of
data (forming part of the larger database) over three
types of cement were used in the investigation. The
multi-linear regression program, LREGMB, developed
by Kojovic [25], was used in the study to select the

fr
most significant correlations based on statistical criteria.
30- The correlation between the concentration of the
four major chemical components and 28 d strength
characteristic, F28, developed by Knofel [24] was found
20-
to be inadequate for the data collected in the study.
o
U ' A new descriptor of chemical composition, FCH, was
~ 10- defined (Eq. (9)) and found to be more strongly related
to the 28 d strength than F28 (Eq. (10)). Regression
0 | I I I I
models were then developed, expressing strength in
0 10 20 30 40 50 terms of chemical composition (FCH) and the pro-
Observed Concrete Strength (MPa) portion in certain size intervals (Eqs. (11)-(13)), and
composition and surface area (Eqs. (14)-(16)).
Fig. 13. Observed vs. predicted concrete strength (Eq. (18) regression).
These equations show that the early strengths (3 d
50
and 7 d) are significantly affected by the proportion
of - 8 ~m material, whilst the later strength (28 d) is
strongly related to the proportion of - 3 2 / ~ m material.
The cement strength, both early and later, was found
to increase with an increase of surface area. The
30 selection of a model to predict strength will depend
upon what information is available: PSD (Eqs. (11)-(13))
or surface area (Eqs. (14)-(16)). In view of the variety
6 of cement types and sources incorporated in the data
base, it is expected that these correlations will have
wide applicability.
A new relationship between the cement compressive
strength results determined by the concrete mix and
0 10 20 30 40 50
mortar test methods has been established based on an
Observed Concrete S~ength (MPa) extra 71 data sets logged from one industrial laboratory
Fig. 14. Observed vs. predicted concrete strength (based on Eq.(18)) (Eq. (18)). This model was then applied to the results
-- i n d e p e n d e n t data set. from an additional 36 independent data points obtained
252 Y.M. Zhang, T.J. Napier-Munn / Powder Technology 83 (1995) 245-252

with three types of cement. This demonstrated that Southern Cement Ltd, particularly Mr M.R. Boadle,
the cement strength determined by the concrete mix for their support and assistance during sampling surveys
test can be well predicted from the results determined and data analysis, and for financial support of the work.
by the mortar compressive test using the simple model.
These new relationships are helpful in optimizing
clinker grinding by simulation using grinding and clas-
sification models [12,13], since they permit performance References
to be expressed in terms of meaningful criteria (such
as strength) and commonly-used operating indicators [1] A. Kato and K. Hirose, Ass. Jpn. Portland Cem. Eng., Rev. Gen.
Meet. 23, (1969) 109.
(such as Blaine Index or surface area), as well as size
[2] F.W. Locher, S. Sprung and P. Korf, Zem. Kalk-Gips, 26 (1973)
distribution. 349.
[3] G. Frigione and S. Marra, Cem. Concr. Res., 6 (1976) 113.
[4] L.G. Austin, P.L. Luckie and H.M.V. Seebach, in H. Rumpf
8. List of symbols and K. Schonert (eds.), Proc. Fourth Eur. Syrup. ZerMeinem,
DECHEMA Monogr., 79 Nr. 1576-1588, Verlag Chemie, Wein-
3D 3 d compressive strength (MPa) helm, pp. 519-537.
7D 7 d compressive strength (MPa) [5] K. Kuhlmann, H.G. Ellerbrock and S. Sprung, Zem. Kalk-Gips,
38 (1985) 169 (Translation No. 4/85).
28D 28 d compressive strength (MPa)
[6] M.S. Sumner, N.M. Hepher and G.K. Moir, 1989, Cim. Bdtons,
c~s dicalcium silicate Pldtres, Chaux, 778 (1989) 164.
C~A tricalcium aluminate [7] G. Frohnsdoff and J.R. Clifton, IEEE Cement Industry Tech.
C3S tricalcium silicate Conf., Toronto, Canada, May 19-22, 1980.
C4AF tetracalcium aluminoferrite [8] H.F. Welles, Zem. Kalk-Gips, 35 (1982) 425.
[9] A.M. Neville and J.J. Brooks, Concrete Technology, Longman
DAY time (days)
Scientific and Technical, New York, 1987.
F surface shape factor [10] A.C. Davis, Portland Cement, London Concrete, 1934, p. 1-17.
F28 28 d concrete strength characteristic (%) [11] L.G. Austin, N.P. Weymount and O. Knobloch, Eur. Syrup.
FCH chemical characteristic for cement Particle Technology, Amsterdam, 1980, pp. 640-655.
N number of data sets used in regression [12] Y.M. Zhang, A. Kavetsky, T.J. Napier-Munn and D.S. Rapson,
Cement and Concrete Association of Australia Tech. Conf., Moss
Om measured surface area, Eq. (1) (cm2/g)
Vale, Aug., 1987.
Os measured surface area, Eq. (4) (m2/kg) [13] Y.M. Zhang, T.J. Napier-Munn and A. Kavetsky, Trans. Inst.
R wt.% retained in Eq. (7) Min. Metall. Section C, 97 (1988) C'207-C~14.
R2 coefficient of determination for regression [14] Anon 1980, Australia standard method of testing Portland and
equation blended cement, fineness index of Portland cement by air
permeability method, AS 2350.8, Standard Association of Aus-
SD standard deviation of regression coefficients
tralia.
$32 cumulative % passing 32 /zm [15] Anon 1988a, Australia standard method of testing Portland
$8 cumulative % passing 8 /zm and blended cement, compressive strength of Portland and
Sm surface area calculated from regression Eq. blended cement, AS 2350.11, Standard Association of Australia.
(1) (cm//g) [16] Anon 1988b, Australia standard method of testing Portland
and blended cement, compressive strength of Portland and
Ss surface area calculated f r o m Eq. (6)
blended cement, AS 1012.2, Standard Association of Australia.
(m2/kg) [17] K. Kuhlmann, 1984, Zem. Kalk-Gips, 37 (1984) 257: Translation
SSA cement surface area (m//kg) No. 9/84.
SE standard error of regression equations [18] G. Herdan, Small Particle Statistics, Elsevier, London, 1953,
STNmix concrete strength by mix test (MPa) p. 413.
[19] E.C. Higginson, 1970, ASTM, Spec. Tech. Publ., 473 (1970)
STNmo,t~ concrete strength by mortar test (MPa)
71-81.
w1 weight percent in size fraction i (Eq. (5)) [20] G.E. Troxell, H.E. Davis and J.W. Kelly, Composition and
x size (cm) Properties of Concrete, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2nd edn., 1968.
Xm geometric mean size (cm) [21] F.W. Locher, J. Wuhrer and K. Schweden, Tonind.-Zeitun~ 90
AQ, weight percent in size fraction, i (Eq. (2)) (12) (1966) 547-554.
(%) [22] W.H. Taylor, Concrete Technology and Practice, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 4th edn., 1977.
density (g/cm3 or kg/m3) [23] A.M. Neville and J.J. Brooks, Concrete Technology, Longman
Scientific and Technical, New York, 1987.
[241 D. Knofel, Zero. Kalk-Gips, 9 (1979) 448-454.
Acknowledgements [25] T. Kojovic, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Queensland, Australia
(1988).
The authors express their appreciation to the staff [26] Y.M. Zhang, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Queensland, Australia
of Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd and Blue Circle (1992).