Microstructure of Cement

Based Materials

Dr. B. K.Vendhan
Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
S.V. National Institute of Technology
Surat--395007, Gujarat, India
Surat

1
 Pore Structure
What is pore?

 Flaw or defect in CBM. (it’s a minute hole or void)

 Inside concrete Pores and Porosity.
 Failure of CBM Development & Propagation of cracks.
 Failure where the largest pores are concentrated
 Strength of CBM Porosity and Pore sizes.

2
Contd…..

3
 Characterization of Pore Structure of
CBM
The parameters most commonly used:
• Porosity
• Hydraulic radius
• Specific surface area
• Threshold diameter
• Pore Size Distribution Ref:(27)

4
 What is Pore Size Distribution
(PSD)?
Cumulative pore volume in cc/cc

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
pore radius in nm

Cumulative Pore Size Distribution Differential Pore Size Distribution

5
 Contd…
• According to Patil and
Bhattacharjee (Ref.4)

6
 Necessity for Pore Structure Characterization
 Microstructure influences the long-lasting service life of
structures.

 Generally it governs the strength and durability of cement based

products.

 The pore system and porosity of concrete play decisive role in

influencing the physical and mechanical properties of concrete.

 The pore structure of cement paste governs

(i) Their physical and chemical resistance against aggressive
environments.
(ii) Strength and thermal conductivity etc.

 ITZ is also important in the formation of microstructure.

7
Microstructure of CBM
(i) C-S-H
(ii) C-H
(iii) Ettringite
(iv) Monosulfate
(v) Pores & Porosity

(a) Gel pores

(b) Capillary pores
(c) Air Voids

8
 Hydration of Portland Cement

Cement consists of the following major compounds:

• Tricalcium silicate, C3S
• Dicalcium silicate, C2S
• Tricalcium aluminate, C3A
• Tetracalcium aluminoferrite, C4AF
• Gypsum, CSH2

Tricalcium aluminate + gypsum + water  ettringite + heat

C3A + 3CSH2 + 26H  C6AS3H32, ∆ H = 207 cal/g

Tricalcium silicate + water  calcium silicate hydrate + lime + heat

2C3S + 6H  C3S2H3 + 3CH, ∆ H = 120 cal/g

Dicalcium silicates + water  calcium silicate hydrate + lime

• Ref:(26)
C2S + 4H  C3S2H3 + CH, ∆ H = 62 cal/g
9
10
11
 BSE IMAGE ANALYSIS

BSE and Binary Images of hcp

in Concrete
(b)
(a)
10µm
(a) BSE Image
(b) Binary Image of
UH Phase
(c) Binary Image of
Pore Phase
(d) Polygon Image of
Pore Features
(c) (d)

12
METHODS OF MEASUREMENT OF POROSITY
AND PSD

 Fluid displacement method.

 Helium Pycnometer
 Capillary condensation and adsorption desorption isotherm.
 Small angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) method.
 Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM).
 Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR).
 AC Impedence Spectroscopy.
 Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry (MIP).
 Back Scattered Electron Images (BSE).

Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry (MIP) is most popular.

13
 Methods of Measurement, Pore Size
Range and Principle of Measurement
Method of Measurement of pore
Pore Size Range Principle of Measurement
sizes
MIP 2.5 nm – 1 mm Based on principle of Washburn’s equation. Uses non wetting
liquid mercury. Pore entry sizes are measured.

Helium Inflow Technique 1nm – 8 nm Flow of helium with time is measured. Measures the
microspace between C-S-H layers.

NMR 1.5 nm – 10 µm It works on the principle of interaction of nuclear magnetic

moments with externally applied electromagnetic waves in the
radio frequency region.

SAXS 1 nm -100 nm It is based on the principle measurement of intensity of x ray

scattered by particles.

SEM 60nm – 1 mm Intensity of reflected electrons is proportional to the atomic

number of substances in the object and the density of the
material.

14
 Wetting & Non-Wetting Liquid

• A wetting fluid is capable of maintaining surface contact with a solid

• Its contact angles < 90 degrees (the angle starts from the wetted surface to the surface of the
fluid).
• Non-wetting fluids contact angles > 90 degrees.
• Imagine a droplet of mercury.
• As a non-wetting fluid, mercury remains still on a solid surface like a ball.
• It does not spread on the surface at all.

15
 MIP
 What is MIP?

16
 Details of the Instrument
Name of the instrument : Autoscan Mercury Porosimeter
Make :Quantachrome Corporation (USA)
Model :Poremaster – PM 60
Pressure range : Sub ambient – 60,000 psi
(0 – 414 MPa)
Pressure accuracy : 0.25% of full range
Maximum intrusion : 2 cc
Volume resolution : 0.005 cc graphical
Pore dia range ( At 1400 Contact Angle) : 400 – 0.0035µm
17
 Basic Principle of MIP
• The mercury behaves as a non wetting liquid with most of the solids.
• Does not penetrate into the openings and cracks unless external pressure is
applied.
• The pressure required is a function of the contact angle of mercury, its
surface tension and geometry of the pores etc.

 2 w cos
p
r
In this relation:

p is the pressure required to intrude a pore of radius r,

β is contact angle between the liquid and the pore wall,

σw is surface tension of liquid.

18
Intrusion-Extrusion Hysteresis & Entrapment of Mercury in
Cement Paste

Arrows indicate directions of intrusion (curve 1), extrusion

(curve 2) and reintrusion (curve 3).
19
 Flow Chart
(Penetrometer Calibration, Volumetric Method)
Fill the Penetrometer with Mercury
(Hg) in low Pressure (Evacuate and
Fill)

Insert Penetrometer into Low/High

Pressure Station

Remove Penetrometer after display of

instruction

Measure distance of Hg in the filled

Penetrometer from top of cell

Place it in the Low/High Pressure

Station

Software will display the voltage

reading

Enter the measured distance of Hg

Repeat Steps 4 to 7 another five times

After completing six times, click on

calculate

`
Display of Penetrometer constant for
Low/High Pressure station 20
 Penetrometer Constants

Penetrometer Constants (mv/cc)

Stations 2 cc 0.5 cc
Penetrometer Penetrometer

LP Station 1 3361 1749

LP Station 2 3337 1735
HP Station 2530 1526

21
 Values of Mercury Constants Used in MIP
Material and Drying Technique Contact angle Surface Tension
Authors
(β) ( σw)

Winslow and Diamond (146) HCP (Oven dried) 1170 0.484 N/m

Winslow and Diamond (146) HCP (P dried) 1300 0.484 N/m

Winslow and Liu (130) HCP (Vacuum dried) 1160 0.480 N/m

Cook and Hover (117) Concrete (Oven dried) 1170 0.480 N/m

Bager and Sellevold (78) HCP (Oven dried) 1170 0.484 N/m

Kayyali (149) Concrete (Oven dried) 1170 0.484 N/m

Hearn and Hooton (137) HCP (Oven dried) 1400 ---

Laskar, R. Kumar and Concrete (Oven dried) 1170 0.484 N/m

Bhattacharjee (155)

Patil and Bhattacharjee (1) Cement silica fume paste and 1170 0.484 N/m
mortar (Oven dried)

22
Flow Chart (Operating procedure)
Load sample into penetrometer

Run low pressure (0 to 35 psi)

(Evacuate and fill)

Low pressure run complete

Determine the weight of

penetrometer along with sample and
Mercury (Hg)

Determine the volume of the sample

(With the help of software)

Insert penetrometer along with

sample and mercury into Low
Pressure Status

Run Low Pressure (0 to 35 psi) (Low

Pressure Analysis and refill)

Low Pressure Run complete

`

Prepare Penetrometer for High

Pressure Run
23
 Contd…

Remove 1 cm Hg & Measure height of Hg

Replace it by Oil Column

Place Penetrometer into High Pressure

Cavity

Place Stainless Steel Sheeth along with

Stainless Steel Spacer into High
Pressure Cavity

Close High Pressure Cavity

Run High Pressure (20 to 60,000 psi)

High Pressure Run Complete

24
25
26
 Case Study -I
Cement paste Cement mortar
w/c
Cement type
ratio
Age (days) Age (days)

0.2 Cement I &II 1,3,7,28,56,90 and 150 1,3,7,28,56 and 90

Cement I &II
0.3 1,3,7,28,56,90 and 150 1,3,7,28,56 and 90

Cement I &II
0.4 1,3,7,28,56,90 and 150 1,3,7,28,56 and 90

Cement I &II
0.5 1,3,7,28,56,90 and 150 1,3,7,28,56 and 90

Cement I &II
0.6 1,3,7,28,56,90 and 150 1,3,7,28,56 and 90

27
 SPECIMEN DETAILS

 Size of MIP Specimen: 9.5 mm dia., 23mm height circular

 No of Specimens:210 (5x7x3x2) for OPC paste

180 (5x6x3x2) for OPC mortar

 Total Number of MIP Specimens 390

28
 MARSH CONE TEST

• Optimum dosage of super-plasticizer is determined

29
FLOW TABLE TEST

30
OPTIMUM DOSAGE OF SUPER-
SUPER-PLASTICIZER
VERSUS W/C

12

Optimum dosage of super-

10

plasticizer
6

Cement I 4

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
w/c ratio

14
Optimum dosage of super- 12

10
plasticizer

Cement II 6

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
w/c ratio
31
Mould for MIP test Casting of MIP Specimens

32
Hydration arrestation Oven drying of MIP specimens
33
Samples for MIP MIP test under progress

0.25

Cumulative Intruded Volume in

0.2

0.15
cc/cc
0.1

0.05 Expt Data

Average curve
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
Pressure in (psi)

Cumulative volume v/s pressure curves

34
High pressure cavity
35
 Analysis of Experimental Results
• MMF Model Applicable to MIP (Using curve expert 1.3)
ab  c(p)d (1)
V
b  (p)d

c( p ) d (2)
V
b  ( p) d
Using Washburn’s equation & b = (p0.5)d

d
Pr 0 .5
V  (3)
 r0 .5
d d
r
36
 r0.5 AND d VERSUS AGE

40

r0.5 30 w/c=0.4

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Age (days)

1.6

1.2

0.8
d

0.4
w/c=0.3

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Age 37
 RELATIONSHIPS FOR r0.5 AND d WITH W/C
AND AGE

• Capillary entry radius determination

Di
CEMENT l

D
D D0

1
 3 c w 
3 1  1 c w 
l   k1 D  k1 D
3
  k1 3 D 1  
  w c   3  w c 
38
Hydration: Physical changes

Inner Product
(C-S-H etc)

Outer Product
(C-S-H etc)

Un-hydrated
Cement

Ca (OH)2

Capillary Pores

39
 Degree of hydration  = 1-k2(Di/D)3

The mass of water reacted within the unit cell is  0.23k 1 D  k 2 Di  c

3 3

Total mass of hydrated product is  1.23k 1 D  k 2 D i  c

3 3

The volume of the solid products including the inherent gel pores is



1.23k 1 D 3  k 2 D i  c
3

 w  2.51  0.72


 0.68k 1 D 3  k 2 Di  c
3


k 3 D0  k1 k 2 Di  0.68k1 ( D 3  k 2 Di )  c
3 3 3

40
 Contn…
Contn …

 l  D0 
rcap  
 2 

     
1 1  w  1   1  
rcap  k1 3 D 1  1.05    1    1 0.381 
2   c  k 3
  3   k3 3  

w
  0.217 ln   0.06 lnt   0.618
c

41
 Degree of Hydration
 b 
 
 w 
Lam et al Degree of hydration   ae  c

Avarami’s Degree of hydration 

  1  exp  ai t  bi  i
c

K.S.Pann et al Degree of hydration
 DEGREE OF HYDRATION DETERMINATION
FOR OPC PASTE
Non evaporable water W n  100   w1 w 2   LOI
 w2 
Where w1 is dried weight of cement paste at 100±5° C, w2 is the
ignited weight of paste at 1000±50° C and the LOI is loss on ignition
of cement. Wn
Degree of hydration   100 
0.23

Cement I Cement II

1.0 1.0
degree of hydration

Degree of hydration
0.8 1 day 0.8 1 day
3 days 3 days
0.6 0.6
7 days 7 days
0.4 0.4
28 days 28 days
0.2 56 days 0.2 56 days
0.0 90 days 0.0 90 days
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 150 days 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 150 days
w/c ratio w/c ratio

43
MODEL FOR DEGREE OF HYDRATION OF OPC
PASTE
Segmentation age
(days)
w
  0.217 ln   0.07 ln t  0.578 w/c Estimated Reported
c 0.3 0.07 -
Coefficient of determination = 89% 0.4 0.78 3
0.5 10 14
0.6 146 180

w/c=0.2 w/c=0.6

0.600 1.000

Degree of Hydration
Degree of hydration

0.500 0.800
0.400
Cement I 0.600 Cement I
0.300
Cement II 0.400 cement II
0.200
0.100 0.200

0.000 0.000
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Age Age

44
 PERCOLATION THRESHOLD

Percolation is the long term connectivity of capillary pores in porous media

with respect to some flow and depends upon the flow mechanism.

Percolation threshold is the point at which capillary pore spaces no longer

percolates.

Percolation
w/c ratio age
Threshold

0.2 0 0.39
0.3 0.07 0.40
0.4 0.78 0.37
0.5 10 0.35
0.6 146 0.33 45
 POWER’S MODEL POROSITY
 
 
Gel porosity
0 . 19 h
  
 w  
  c   0 . 317 
 

 w  
 c   0 . 36 h 
   
Capillary porosity =  w 
   0 . 317

 c  
 

 w  
   0 . 17 h 
Total porosity   
c 
 w  
    0 . 317 
 c  
 Contd…
Contd …

r0.5( gel )  a1
w c   a w   a w  a
4
2

t c c 2 3 4

r0.5  [ r0.5( gel ) ]  [ r0.5( cap ) ] or , ln( r0.5 )  p gel ln[ r0.5( gel ) ]  pcap ln[ r0.5( cap ) ]
p gel pcap

Where, pgel =0.19/(w/c-0.17)

pcap = (w/c-0.36)/(w/c-0.17)

d, age and water cement ratio

w w
d   c1  c 2 ln   c 3 ln t  c4
c c
Where, c1, c2, c3 and c4 are empirical constants and are 5.97, 0.89, 0.36 and
3.94 respectively for cement I and those for cement II are 7.11, 1.16, 0.29 and
4.73 respectively.
47
EXPERIMENTAL & ESTIMATED r0.5 FOR OPC PASTES
Cement I Cement II

Experimental Experimental

w/c age r0.5 nm. Estimated r0.5 nm % Error r0.5 nm. Estimated r0.5 nm. % Error
1 14.53 12.63 13.11 13.03 11.37 12.69
3 10.02 11.36 -13.4 11.18 10.1 9.74
7 11.51 11 4.41 7.24 9.73 -34.45
28 8.93 10.8 -20.89 10.94 9.52 12.95
56 7.16 10.77 -50.32 10.79 9.49 12.02
90 11.74 10.75 8.44 8.09 9.48 -17.17
0.2 150 12.27 10.75 12.41 5.95 9.47 -59.16
1 24.62 24.54 0.3 23.76 22.8 4.02
3 19.63 18.15 7.57 16.45 16.33 0.71
7 17.1 16.32 4.55 16.16 14.48 10.36
28 15.72 15.29 2.74 13.87 13.44 3.08
56 15.61 15.12 3.15 13.1 13.27 -1.27
90 16.44 15.05 8.43 14.92 13.2 11.51
0.3 150 15.96 15.01 5.94 14.9 13.16 11.69
1 34.7 46.25 -33.31 37.56 44.32 -18
3 24.59 26.04 -5.86 21.08 23.87 -13.22
7 21.94 20.26 7.68 20.26 18.03 11.05
28 16.64 17.01 -2.24 13.31 14.74 -10.77
56 13.86 16.47 -18.87 12.14 14.19 -16.89
90 11.88 16.27 -36.87 12.05 13.99 -16.02
48
0.4 150 17.55 16.13 8.11 13.6 13.85 -1.83
EXPERIMENTAL & ESTIMATED r0.5 FOR OPC
PASTES
Cement I Cement II
Experimenta
Experimental l
Estimated r0.5 Estimated
w/c age r0.5 nm. nm % Error r0.5 nm. r0.5 nm. % Error
1 142.26 217.16 -52.65 - - -
3 54.26 103.00 -89.83 92.79 66.04 28.82
7 31.13 34.22 -9.90 21.91 21.99 -0.37
28 16.99 16.32 3.97 16.71 13.78 17.56
56 13.38 15.00 -12.11 12.15 12.44 -2.40
90 12.33 14.50 -17.58 11.84 11.93 -0.81
0.5 150 19.10 14.17 25.80 11.22 11.60 -3.39
3 411.95 329.59 19.99 - - -
7 120.15 225.55 -87.72 53.39 143.23 -168.25
28 20.76 112.87 -443.78 15.14 70.45 -365.43
56 15.74 75.00 -376.45 14.78 46.22 -212.70
90 12.60 52.66 -317.94 12.49 32.22 -157.95
0.6 150 20.36 29.06 -42.76 9.93 17.68 -78.14
49
EXPERIMENTAL d VALUES FOR OPC PASTES
Cement I Cement II
w/c ratio age
Exp. d values Exp.d values

1 1.387 1.299
3 1.366 2.153
7 2.309 1.942
0.2 28 2.741 2.387
56 2.47 2.794
90 2.775 2.72
150 2.859 1.727
1 0.86 0.754
3 1.462 1.304
7 1.958 2.464
0.3 28 3.074 3.024
56 2.956 2.936
90 2.515 2.847
150 2.942 3.171
1 0.51 0.537
3 0.692 0.642
7 1.186 0.987
0.4 28 2.327 1.826
56 2.098 2.015
90 1.539 2.045
50
150 3.229 1.951
EXPERIMENTAL d VALUES FOR OPC PASTES

Cement I Cement II
w/c ratio age
Exp. d values Exp.d values

1 0.557 -

3 0.571 0.462

7 0.686 0.624

0.5 28 1.611 1.183

56 1.872 1.436

90 1.622 1.391

150 1.913 1.433

3 0.5 -

7 0.4 0.525

28 0.846 0.788
0.6
56 1.09 1.228

90 1.29 1.248

150 2.253 1.38

51
IMPLICATION OF r0.5 AND POROSITY ON
STRENGTH

  KC
1  p
r0.5

Cα(1-p)/sqrt(r0.5) (in-1/2)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Experimental compressive

Experimental compressive
160 25000

20000
strength (MPa)

strength (psi)
120
15000
80
10000
40
5000

0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Cα(1-p)/sqrt(r0.5) (nm -1/2)

Coefficient of correlation = 89% K=1002.6

52
STRENGTH VERSUS W/C RATIO FOR OPC
PASTE (ABRAM’S LAW VERIFICATION)
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
1 day
80
Est. comp.stre Mpa

3 days
75
7 days
70
28 days
65
56 days
60
90 days
55
150 days
50
180 days
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.2 0.35 0.5
w/c ratio
53
 IMPLICATION OF r0.5 AND POROSITY ON
PERMEABILITY

gr 2 dp g
rmax rmax
r 2 dv
k    dr
12   1  1 2   
2 1 dr
12   1  2 
rmin 2 rmin
   
  
dv
dv  d ln r
d ln r

dv dv
r
d ln r dr

dv  dr0d.5 r d 1

dr 
r0d.5  r d
2

gr 2 dp g
rmax rmax m
 dv 
kj    r r2
  d ln r d ln r 
rmin 12   1  1 2  12  2  1  1   
2
  
min
54
  
2
 Contd…
Contd …
m
jn
gr j
2   pr d dr d  
k   0 .5 j 
d ln r 
j 1  1  

12  2  1  2   r0.5  r j 
d d

2 


  
8
7 Kratio = -1.9893(m) + 5.3053
6
5
4
kratio

3
2
m =2.67
1
0
-1 -0.5 -1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
-2
m

Coefficient of correlation 99%

55
 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERMEABILITY
VERSUS W/C RATIO

2.5E-12
1.8E-13
1.6E-13
2E-12
1.4E-13
1.2E-13
1.5E-12

k m/s
1E-13
k m/s

7 days 28 days
8E-14
1E-12
6E-14
4E-14
5E-13
2E-14
0
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
w/c w/c

56
 COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND
ESTIMATED PERMEABILITY OF OPC PASTE

Integral Absolute Error (IAE) index 

O i  Pi  
2 1/ 2

 Oi
Where Oi is the observed permeability values and Pi is the predicted
permeability values.
w/c age logkest logkexp
The percentage of IAE index = 8.62
0.4 14 -12.87 -12.35
0.4 28 -13.03 -13.05
0.5 14 -12.45 -10.67
0.5 28 -12.77 -11.88
0.3 210 -13.66 -15.57
0.4 35 -13.07 -14.46
0.4 210 -13.28 -14.91
0.47 28 -12.84 -14.21
0.47 84 -13.07 -13.85
0.35 28 -13.20 -12.05

57
 IMPLICATION OF r0.5 AND POROSITY ON
HYDRAULIC DIFFUSIVITY
d 4 f w cos 
k   d 
D     k   d 2  dv 
c   d r   g
2

 dr 
m
  
jn
f1 w cos       Pr0.5 dr j
d d
 d ln r 
D     j 1 2  dv 
3 w 

  w  1  2    0.5 
1   r d  r d 2
j  



 dr   a c 

D(θ) = 2E-16e7.5541(θ)
R = 0.94
1.0E-2
1.0E-5
Drying
D(θ) m2/sec

1.0E-8
wetting
1.0E-11
Power (Drying)
1.0E-14
Expon. (wetting)
1.0E-17
1.0E-20 D(θ) = 4E-15(θ)2.293
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 R = 0.99
Relative moisture content (θ)

58
EXPERIMENTAL r0.5 AND d VALUES FOR OPC
SAND MORTAR
Cement I Cement II
w/c ratio age r0.5 nm d r0.5 nm d
1 32.25 0.618 36.26 1.345
3 25.02 0.982 28.39 1.543
7 20.79 0.646 20.78 1.729
28 17.13 1.021 13.74 1.817
56 18.75 1.245 14.02 2.015
0.2 90 14.53 1.732 12.23 2.21
1 33.06 0.564 46.18 0.388
3 30.5 0.429 43.09 0.614
7 29.38 0.859 40.61 0.762
28 29.02 0.955 41.01 0.975
56 34.34 1.143 33.56 1.217
0.3 90 16.59 1.503 28.11 1.372
1 51.8 0.427 56.64 0.389
3 44 0.512 41.32 0.527
7 35.1 0.678 39.99 0.745
28 27.5 0.921 40.96 1.025
56 23.5 1.05 32.87 1.384
0.4 90 24.8 1.21 28.07 1.621
59
EXPERIMENTAL r0.5 AND d VALUES FOR OPC
MORTAR
Cement I Cement II

r0.5 nm
w/c ratio age r0.5 nm d d

1 56.2 0.292 51.64 0.249

3 39.79 0.428 48.25 0.428

7 36.53 0.514 47.92 0.61

28 32.45 0.394 37.45 1.436

56 23.31 2.078 26.54 1.588

0.5 90 25.18 2.948 23.47 1.614

1 82.96 0.435 65.44 0.305

3 90.42 0.429 50.07 1.064

7 51.04 0.509 44.28 1.279

28 43.01 0.822 49.73 2.133

56 30.97 1.109 33.11 2.747

0.6 90 30.83 1.352 34.87 2.878

60
 RELATIONSHIP FOR r0.5 AND d FOR OPC
MORTAR

s1  w
r0.5   s2    s3
t c
Where S1, S2, and S3 are empirical constants and the corresponding values
are 24.79, 71.87, 0.865 for cement I and those values for cement II are
17.72, 52.73, and 13.15 respectively.

w w
d   c1  c 2 ln   c 3 ln t  c4
c c
Where, c1, c2, c3 and c4 are empirical constants and are 1.36, 0.713,
0.217 and -0.982 respectively for cement I and those for cement II are
17.06, -6.29, 0.314 and -12.55 respectively 61
IMPLICATION OF r0.5 AND POROSITY ON
STRENGTH FOR OPC MORTAR

  KC
1  p
r0.5
70
60
Comp.stre Mpa

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
cα(1-p)/sqrt(r0.5)

Coefficient of correlation =80% K=1441.2

62
DETERMINATION OF INTERCONNECTIVITY
FACTOR (m)

4.0
3.0
Kratio = -2.526(m) + 3.8754
2.0
1.0
0.0
kratio

-1.0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
m

Coefficient of correlation= 99%

m =1.53
63
 PERMEABILITY AND HYDRAULIC
DIFFUSIVITY RELATIONSHIPS
8.0E-05 5.0E-08

4.0E-08
6.0E-05

3.0E-08

k m/s
k m/s

4.0E-05 3 days 7 days

2.0E-08

2.0E-05
1.0E-08

0.0E+00 0.0E+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
w/c ratio w/c ratio

11.996(RMC)
w/c=0.3, 90 days 6.5041(RMC) w/c=0.55, 7 days D = 4E-11e
D = 1E-13e

10 1.0E+02
0.01 1.0E-01
drying 1.0E-04 drying
1E-05 D m 2/s
D m 2/s

wetting 1.0E-07 wetting

1E-08
Expon. (wetting) 1.0E-10 Expon. (wetting)
1E-11 1.0E-13
Power (drying) Power (drying)
1E-14 1.0E-16
1.7621 2.9798
1E-17 D = 2E-13(RMC) 1.0E-19 D = 2E-12(RMC)
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
RMC RMC

Coefficient of correlation 87% & 96% Coefficient of correlation 92% & 94% 64
 COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND
ESTIMATED PERMEABILITY OF OPC MORTAR

Integral Absolute Error (IAE) index 

O i  Pi  
2 1/ 2

 Oi
Where Oi is the observed permeability values and Pi is the predicted
permeability values.
w/c ratio Age logkest logkexp
The percentage of IAE index = 0.04
0.4 28 -9.84 -9.49

0.5 90 -10.56 -10.72

0.5 28 -9.66 -9.38

0.55 450 -11.22 -11.52

0.6 28 -9.61 -9.12

0.7 90 -10.52 -10.89

0.7 28 -9.64 -9.01

65
 CONCLUSIONS
• A generalized model is proposed in this work through which main
parameters of pore size distribution namely, mean distribution radius
r0.5, and dispersion coefficient d of OPC paste can be estimated when
w/c ratio, age and average cement size is known.

• Using overall porosity that can be determined through well known

available formula, complete pore size distribution of cement paste can be
obtained through the equations presented in this work.

• The strength of cement paste can be estimated from the information of

w/c ratio, age and fineness of cement by calculating r0.5 through the
model proposed in this work.

• The dispersion of pore size becomes lesser with age and also with
decrease in w/c ratio. The dispersion coefficient d is related to w/c ratio
and degree of hydration. Consequently, a relationship for d with w/c
ratio and age is thus presented

66
 CONCLUSIONS

• The proposed empirical model for degree of hydration through non-

evaporable water content for OPC paste revealed that it is a function of
w/c ratio and curing ages as expected.

• By using the modified permeability and hydraulic diffusivity models,

the permeability and hydraulic diffusivity of the cement paste can be
estimated from the information of w/c ratio, curing age and mean
cement particle diameter along with calculating r0.5 and d through the
proposed relationships.

• The estimated permeability of OPC paste against w/c ratio shows the
same trend as given by Powers and it is validated reasonably well
through the reported experimental permeability data.

67
 CONCLUSIONS
• A model is proposed in this work through which main parameters of pore
size distribution namely, mean distribution radius r0.5, and dispersion
coefficient d of OPC mortar can be estimated when w/c ratio, and age is
known.

• The strength of cement mortar can be estimated from the information of

w/c ratio, age and fineness of cement by calculating r0.5 through the model
proposed in this work.

• By using the modified permeability and hydraulic diffusivity models, the

permeability and hydraulic diffusivity of the cement mortar can be
estimated from the information of w/c ratio, curing age and mean cement
particle diameter along with calculating r0.5 and d through the proposed
relationships.

• The estimated permeability of OPC mortar against w/c ratio shows the
same trend as given by Powers and it is validated reasonably well through
the reported experimental permeability data

68
Case Study –II (CEMENT-
(CEMENT-FLY ASH SYSTEM)

w/(c+f) Cementitious
Sl.no Ratio Material type Age (days) f/c ratio

1 0.25 (C+fly ash) 7, 28, & 90 0, 10, 20, 30 and 40

2 0.35 (C+fly ash) 7, 28, & 90 0, 10, 20, 30 and 40
3 0.45 (C+fly ash) 7, 28, & 90 0, 10, 20, 30 and 40
4 0.55 (C+fly ash) 7, 28, & 90 0, 10, 20, 30 and 40

69
 SPECIMEN DETAILS

 Size of MIP Specimen: 9.5 mm dia., 23mm height circular

 No of Specimens: 180 (4x5x3x3) for C+Fly ash Paste
180 (4x5x3x3) for C+Fly ash mortar

 Total Number of MIP Specimens 360

 Size of Cubes: 50x50x50 mm3

 No of Cubes: 180 (4x5x3x3) for C+Fly ash Paste
180 (4x5x3x3) for C+Fly ash mortar
 Total Number of Cubes 360

70
 OPTIMUM DOSAGE OF SUPER-
SUPER-PLASTICIZER
FOR CEMENT FLY ASH PASTE
w/(c+f) = 0.25 w/(c+f) = 0.35

120 45
40
Time of flow (Sec)

Time of flow (sec)

100 35 0% Fly Ash
0% Fly Ash
80 30 10% Fly Ash
10 % Fly Ash 25
20 % Fly Ash
60 20 % Fly Ash 20
15 30 % Fly Ash
40 30 % Fly Ash
10 40 % Fly Ash
40 % Fly Ash
20 5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4
0 5 10 15
Superplasticizer Dosage (%)
Superplastizier Dosage (%)

14
12
Superplasticizer in %
Optimum Dosage of

10 0% Fly Ash
10 % Fly Ash
8
6
20 % Fly Ash Optimum dosage of super-
30 % Fly Ash
4 40 % Fly Ash plasticizer for (c+f) paste
2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
W/(C+FA)

71
 OPTIMUM DOSAGE OF SUPER-
SUPER-PLASTICIZER
CEMENT--FLY ASH MORTAR
CEMENT
w/c =0.25 w/c=0.35

110 110
0% Fly Ash 0% Fly Ash
100 100
% of Flow

% of Flow
10 % Fly Ash 10 % Fly Ash
90 20 % Fly Ash 90 20 % Fly Ash
30 % of Fly Ash 30 % Fly Ash
80 80
40 % Fly Ash 40% Fly Ash

70 70
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Super-plasticizer Dosage % Super-plasticizer Dosage %

Optimum super-plasticizer dosage

9
8
7
0% Fly Ash
6
10 % Fly Ash
5
Optimum dosage of super-plasticizer
%

20 % Fly Ash
4
30 % Fly Ash
3
2 40 % Fly Ash for cement-fly ash mortar
1
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
w/(c+fa)

72
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF CEMENT FLY
ASH PASTE
Compressive strength Mpa
w/(c+f) f/c
7 days 28days 90 days
0.25 0 52 60 72
0.25 0.1 35.2 49.6 65.6
0.25 0.2 35.2 50.4 60.8
0.25 0.3 33.6 49.6 59.2
0.25 0.4 28 45.6 52
0.35 0 47.2 58.4 59.2
0.35 0.1 39.2 48 49.6
0.35 0.2 38.4 47.2 52.8
0.35 0.3 35.2 38.4 47.2
0.35 0.4 30.4 37.6 45.6
0.45 0 31.2 34.4 39.2
0.45 0.1 27.2 36 39.2
0.45 0.2 22.4 28 29.6
0.45 0.3 21.6 26.4 33.6
0.45 0.4 19.2 28 39.2
0.55 0 22.4 23.2 31.2
0.55 0.1 18.4 24 29.6
0.55 0.2 16 24.8 32
0.55 0.3 15.2 24.8 30.4
0.55 0.4 14.4 23.2 31.2 73
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF CEMENT FLY
ASH MORTAR
Compressive strength Mpa
w/(c+f) f/c
7 days 28days 90 days
0.25 0 48 59.2 63.2
0.25 0.1 48 59.2 71.2
0.25 0.2 48 63.2 80
0.25 0.3 48 63.2 84
0.25 0.4 48 53.6 75.2
0.35 0 47.2 56.8 59.2
0.35 0.1 46.4 53.6 63.2
0.35 0.2 45.6 59.2 67.2
0.35 0.3 43.2 64 71.2
0.35 0.4 39.2 60 63.2
0.45 0 32 40 44
0.45 0.1 29.6 42.4 45.6
0.45 0.2 27.2 45.6 48.8
0.45 0.3 27.2 42.4 51.2
0.45 0.4 24.8 39.2 55.2
0.55 0 23.2 28 33.6
0.55 0.1 18.4 31.2 43.2
0.55 0.2 16.8 29.6 45.6
0.55 0.3 14.4 28.8 43.2
0.55 0.4 13.6 29.6 38.4 74
 DEGREE OF HYDRATION FOR CEMENT FLY
ASH PASTE
w1  w2 r fc
Total non-evaporable water wnT  
w2 1  r fc

r fc  w f r f  wc rc

wn T wn c m c wn  f m f

 T   c mc   f m f

Ref: Nathan Schwarz and  wn c   w n  f 

T    mc   m f
Narayanan  w n c    
 wn f  
Neithalath, 2009, Constructi
on and Building Materials  w   f 
 T  0.148 ln t  0.131 ln   0.513   0.314
Journal  c  f   c
Coefficient of determination =84%
75
VOLUMETRIC PROPORTION OF CEMENT
FLY ASH PASTE

water Capillary Vcap

Vw porosity

Unhydrated fly
Fly ash Vf ash Vuhf
Unhydrated
cement Vuhc

Vhf
Hydrated fly ash

cement Vc
Hydrated
cement Vhc

76
Porosity for Cement Fly Ash System

77
 RELATIONSHIP FOR r0.5 AND d FOR CEMENT
FLY ASH PASTE

 l  d eq 
r0.5( cap )   
 2 
Where, deq is the equivalent diameter of the hydrated and unhydrated products
and l is the length of the cube.

4
 Vw 
 Vb 
 f
2
r0.5  a1   
 a2    Vw 
Vw
  a 3  V   a4    a5
t  Vb  b c

Where a1, a2, a3, a4 and a5are empirical constants and the corresponding
values are 4.45, -19.91, 48.67, -7.97 and 16.14
Coefficient of determination = 76%

78
 Contd…
Contd …

r0.5  [ r0.5 ( gel ) ]  [ r0.5 ( cap ) ] or , ln( r0.5 )  p gel ln[ r0.5 ( gel ) ]  pcap ln[ r0.5 ( cap ) ]
p g el pca p

Where, pcap and pgel are the fraction of capillary and gel porosity in the total
porosity

 w   w   f
d   c1    c 2 ln   c 3 ln t  c4    c5
 c  f    c  f   c

Where, c1, c2, c3, c4 and c5 are empirical constants and are
4.43, 0.538, 0.212, -0.315 and 3.03 respectively.
Coefficient of determination = 83%

79
 IMPLICATION OF r0.5 AND POROSITY ON
STRENGTH FOR CEMENT FLY ASH PASTE

  K (c  f )
1  p
r0.5
180
160
140
Comp.stre MPa

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.00000 0.05000 0.10000 0.15000 0.20000
(c+f)α(1-p)/sqrt(r0.5)

Coefficient of correlation = 86% K=1022.8

80
STRENGTH VERSUS W/C RATIO FOR CEMENT
FLY ASH PASTE (ABRAM’S LAW
VERIFICATION)
f/c=0 f/c=0.1

200.00 200.00
190.00 190.00
180.00 180.00
170.00 170.00
160.00 160.00
150.00 150.00
140.00 140.00
130.00 130.00 3 days
3 day

Com.strength Mpa
Comp.strength Mpa

120.00 7 days 120.00 7 days

110.00 28 days 110.00 28 days
100.00 56 days 100.00 56 days
90.00 90 days 90.00 90 days
80.00 150 days 80.00 150 days
180 days 180 days
70.00 70.00
60.00 60.00
50.00 50.00
40.00 40.00
30.00 30.00
20.00 20.00
10.00 10.00
0.00 0.00
0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55
w/(c+f) ratio w/(c+f) ratio

81
 STRENGTH VERSUS W/C RATIO FOR CEMENT
FLY ASH PASTE (ABRAM’S LAW
VERIFICATION)
f/c=0.2 f/c=0.3

190.00 190.00

180.00 180.00

170.00 170.00

160.00 160.00

150.00 150.00
140.00 140.00
130.00 130.00
3 days 120.00 3 days
120.00
7 days 7 days
Comp.str Mpa

Comp.str Mpa
110.00 110.00
28 days 28 days
100.00 100.00
56 days 56 days
90.00 90.00
90 days 90 days
80.00 80.00
150 days
150 days
70.00 70.00 180 days
180 days
60.00 60.00
50.00 50.00
40.00 40.00
30.00 30.00
20.00 20.00
10.00 10.00
0.00 0.00
0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55
w/(c+f) ratio w/(c+f) ratio

82
STRENGTH VERSUS W/C RATIO FOR CEMENT
FLY ASH PASTE (ABRAM’S LAW
VERIFICATION)
f/c=0.4

190.00
180.00
170.00
160.00
150.00
140.00
130.00
120.00 3 days
7 days
Comp.Str Mpa

110.00
28 days
100.00
56 days
90.00
90 days
80.00
150 days
70.00 180 days
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55
w/(c+f) ratio

83
 IMPLICATION OF r0.5, d AND POROSITY ON
PERMEABILITY FOR CEMENT FLY ASH PASTE

7 days 28 days k = 9E-17e

16.691(W/(c+f )
22.941(w/(c+f ))
K = 4E-17e
2.5E-11 1E-12

2E-11 8E-13

6E-13
k m/s

k m/s
1.5E-11 f/c=0.3
1E-11 4E-13 Expon. (f/c=0.3)
f/c=0.2
5E-12 Expon. (f/c=0.2) 2E-13
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
w/(c+f) w/(c+f)

90 days 16.284(w/(c+f )
K = 5E-17e

4E-13
3.5E-13
3E-13
2.5E-13 R= 95% all cases
k m/s

f/c=0.4
2E-13
1.5E-13 Expon. (f/c=0.4)
1E-13
5E-14
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
w/(c+f)=0.4

84
 IMPLICATION OF r0.5, d AND POROSITY ON
HYDRAULIC DIFFUSIVITY FOR CEMENT FLY
ASH PASTE
w/(c+f)=0.35, f/c=0.2, 7 days w/(c+f)=0.35, f/c=0.2, 28 days
8.2801(RMC) 7.9612(RMC)
D = 2E-16e D = 9E-17e
10
1
0.01
0.001
1E-05 drying

D m2/sec
1E-06 drying
1E-08 wetting
D m2/s

1E-09 wetting
1E-11 Expon. (wetting)
1E-12 Expon. (wetting) 1E-14 Power (drying)
1E-15 Power (drying) 1E-17
2.2609
1E-18 1E-20 D = 3E-15(RMC)
2.3957
1E-21 D = 4E-15(RMC) 0 0.5 1 1.5
0 0.5 1 1.5
RMC
RMC

w/(c+f)=0.35, f/c=0.2, 90 days

7.8214(RMC)
D = 5E-17e
10
0.01 R= 95% all cases
1E-05 drying
D m2/s

1E-08 wetting
1E-11 Expon. (wetting)
1E-14 Power (drying)
1E-17
2.1888
1E-20 D = 2E-15(RMC)
0 0.5 1 1.5
RMC
85
 RELATIONSHIP FOR r0.5 AND d FOR CEMENT
FLY ASH MORTAR
4
 w 
 c f   
2
   f
r0.5  a1  a2  
w
   a 3  c  f   a4    a5
w
t  c  f    c

Where a1, a2, a3, a4 and a5are empirical constants and the corresponding values
are 383.59, -175.87, 184, -23.46 and -18.35
Coefficient of determination = 70%

 w   w   f
d   c1    c 2 ln    c 3 ln t  c4    c5
 c  f    c  f   c
Where, c1, c2, c3, c4 and c5 are empirical constants and are -0.832, 1.792, 0.04, -
0.014 and -0.937 respectively.
Coefficient of determination = 72%
86
 IMPLICATION OF r0.5 AND POROSITY ON
STRENGTH FOR CEMENT FLY ASH MORTAR

  K (c  f )
1  p 
r0.5

120
Comp.Strength (Mpa)

100
80

60

40
20

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
(c+f)α(1-p)/sqrt(r0.5)

Coefficient of correlation = 90% K=1559.2

87
 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH RELATIONSHIP
FOR CEMENT BASED MATERIALS

180
160
Comp.strength (Mpa)

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
(c+f)α(1-p)/sqrt(r0.5)

Coefficient of correlation = 85% K=1081.6

88
 IMPLICATION OF r0.5, D AND POROSITY ON
PERMEABILITY FOR CEMENT FLY ASH
MORTAR
31.727(w/(c+f ))
1.4E-08 K = 2E-16e 3.0E-09 k = 2E-16e
29.024(w/(c+f ))

1.2E-08
2.5E-09
1.0E-08
f/c=0.3, 7 days 2.0E-09 f/c=0.3, 28 days
k m/s

8.0E-09

k m/s
1.5E-09
6.0E-09 Expon. (f/c=0.3, 7 Expon. (f/c=0.3, 28
days) 1.0E-09 days)
4.0E-09
2.0E-09 5.0E-10

0.0E+00 0.0E+00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
w/(c+f) ratio w/(c+f) ratio

26.24(w/(c+f ))
1.6E-09 k = 6E-16e
1.4E-09
1.2E-09
1E-09 f/c=0.3, 90 days
k m/s

8E-10
Expon. (f/c=0.3, 90
R= 95% all cases
6E-10
days)
4E-10
2E-10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
w/(c+f) ratio
89
 IMPLICATION OF r0.5, D AND POROSITY ON
HYDRAULIC DIFFUSIVITY FOR CEMENT FLY
ASH MORTAR
7.0677(RMC)
w/(c+f)=0.4, f/c=0.1, 7 days D = 3E-13e w/(c+f)=0.4, f/c=0.1, 28 days
6.8297(RMC)
D = 2E-13e
1 10
0.001 0.01
Drying drying
1E-05

D m2/s
1E-06
D m2/s

Wetting wetting
1E-09 1E-08
Expon. (Wetting) Expon. (wetting)
1E-12 1E-11
Power (Drying) Power (drying)
1E-14
1E-15
1E-17 1.8413
1E-18 1.8973 D = 2E-13(RMC)
0 0.5 1 1.5 D = 2E-13(RMC) 0 0.5 1 1.5
RMC RMC

w/(c+f)=0.4, f/c=0.1, 90 days

6.6531(RMC)
D = 2E-13e
10
0.01
Drying
1E-05 R= 90% all cases
D m2/s

wetting
1E-08
Expon. (wetting)
1E-11
Power (Drying)
1E-14
1E-17
0 0.5 1 1.5
1.7989
D = 2E-13(RMC)
RMC
90
 CONCLUSIONS
• A model is proposed for degree of hydration of cement fly ash paste as a
function of w/(c+f) ratio, age and f/c ratio through the non-evaporable
water content.

• A model is proposed in this work through which main parameters of pore

size distribution namely, mean distribution radius r0.5, and dispersion
coefficient d of cement fly ash paste can be estimated when w/(c+f) ratio,
age and f/c ratio is known.

• The strength of cement fly ash paste can be estimated from the information
of w/(c+f) ratio, age and f/c ratio by calculating r0.5 through the model
proposed in this work.

• The dispersion of pore size becomes lesser with age and also with decrease
in w/(c+f) ratio. The dispersion coefficient d is related to w/(c+f) ratio and
degree of hydration. Consequently, a relationship for d with w/(c+f )ratio,
f/c ratio and age is thus presented

91
 CONCLUSIONS
• By using the modified permeability and hydraulic diffusivity models, the
permeability and hydraulic diffusivity of the cement fly ash paste can be
estimated from the information of w/(c+f) ratio, f/c ratio and curing age
along with calculating r0.5 and d through the proposed relationships.

• The estimated permeability of cement fly ash paste against w/c ratio shows
the same trend as given by T.C. Powers.

• A model is proposed in this work through which main parameters of pore

size distribution namely, mean distribution radius r0.5, and dispersion
coefficient d of cement fly ash mortar can be estimated when w/(c+f) ratio,
age and f/c ratio is known.

• The strength of cement fly ash mortar can be estimated from the
information of w/(c+f) ratio, age and f/c ratio by calculating r0.5 through the
model proposed in this work.

92
 CONCLUSIONS

• The dispersion of pore size becomes lesser with age and also with decrease
in w/(c+f) ratio. The dispersion coefficient d is related to w/(c+f) ratio and
degree of hydration. Consequently, a relationship for d with w/(c+f )ratio,
f/c ratio and age is thus presented for cement fly ash mortar.

• By using the modified permeability and hydraulic diffusivity models, the

permeability and hydraulic diffusivity of the cement fly ash mortar can be
estimated from the information of w/(c+f) ratio, f/c ratio and curing age
along with calculating r0.5 and d through the proposed relationships.

• The estimated permeability of cement fly ash mortar against w/c ratio
shows the same trend as given by T.C. Power.

93
 Case Study -III
• Crushed and the broken concrete chunks with aggregates
are collected from different grade of concrete mixes.

• Tested at 1, 3, 7, 28, 56 and 90 days of curing.

• From MIP, the experimental PSD parameters determined.

• Compressive strength, permeability and hydraulic

diffusivity are estimated.

94
Intrusion volume versus pressure curve for
M30 grade and 28 days of curing

95
96
97
98
99
 PUBLICATIONS
International Journals (Published)

1. Kondraivendhan, B., and Bhattacharjee, B. “Effect of age, w/c ratio on size and dispersion of pores in
OPC paste”, ACI Materials Journal, V. 107, No. 2, 2010, pp. 147-154.
2. Kondraivendhan, B., and Bhattacharjee, B. “Pore Size Distribution Modification of OPC Paste through
Inclusion of Fly Ash and Sand”, Magazine of concrete research, V. 65, No. 11, 2013, pp. 673-684.
3. Das, B.B., and Kondraivendhan, B. “Implication of Pore size distribution parameters on compressive
strength and permeability and hydraulic diffusivity of concrete”, Construction and Building
Materials, V. 28, No.1, 2012, pp. 382-386.
4. Kondraivendhan, B.; Sabet Divsholi, B.; and Susanto Teng. “Estimation of strength, permeability and
hydraulic diffusivity of pozzolana blended concrete through pore size distribution”, Journal of
Advanced Concrete Technology, V.11, 2013, pp. 230-237.
5. Kondraivendhan, B., and Bhattacharjee, B., “Prediction of strength, permeability and hydraulic
diffusivity of OPC paste”, ACI Materials Journal, V. 111, No. 2, 2014, pp.171-178.
6. Kondraivendhan, B., and Bhattacharjee, B., “Flow behavior and strength for fly ash blended cement
paste and mortar”, International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment”, V.4, 2015, pp. 270-277.
7. Kondraivendhan, B., and Bhattacharjee, B., “Strength and W/C Ratio Relationship of CBM revisited
through pore features”, Materials Characterization, V.122, 2016, pp 124-129.
8. Kondraivendhan, B., “Relationship for size and dispersion of pores with mix factors for cement sand
mortar, Materials Science Forum, V.866, 2016, pp. 37-42

100
 Contd…
International Conferences (Published)

1. Kondraivendhan, B., and Bhattacharjee, B. “Determination of OPC paste porosity through

MIP”, International Conference on Advances in Concrete, Structural and Geotechnical
Engineering, BITS Pilani, 2009, pp.1-6.

2. Kondraivendhan, B., and Bhattacharjee, B. “Assessment of cement sand mortar porosity

through MIP”, International Conference on Advances in Mechanical and Building sciences in
the 3rd millennium, VIT Vellore, 2009, pp.1634-1637.

3. Kondraivendhan, B., and Bhattacharjee, B. “PSD modification of PC paste and mortar due
to fly ash addition”, Proceedings of UKIERI congress: Concrete for 21st century construction,
IIT Delhi, New Delhi, 2011.

4. Kondraivendhan, B.; Sabet Divsholi, B.; and Susanto Teng. “Assessment of strength,
permeability and hydraulic diffusivity of concrete through Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry”
36th conference on our world in concrete and structures, Singapore 2011.

101
 SELECTED REFERENCES

1. Patil, S. G., “A study on porosity and pore size distribution obtained

through MIP of cement paste and cement sandcrete incorporating silica
fume”, PhD thesis, IIT Delhi, 2006.

2. Nagaraj, T. S., and Zahinda, B., “Generalization of Abrams Law”,

Cement and Concrete Research, V.26, 1996, pp. 993-942.

3. Kumar, R., “Strength and permeation quality of concrete through

Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry”, PhD thesis, IIT Delhi, 1997.

4. Patil, S. G., and Bhattacharjee, B., “Size and volume relationship of pore
for construction materials”, Journal of Materials in civil Engineering, V.
20, No. 6, 2008, pp. 410-418.

5. Shi, D., and Winslow, D. N., “Contact and damage during Mercury
Intrusion in to Cement paste”, Cement and Concrete Research, V.15,
1985, pp. 645-654.

102
 Contd…
Contd …
6. Rostasy, F. S., Weib, R., and Weidman, G., “Change of pore structure of
cement mortars due to temperature”, Cement and Concrete Research,
V.10, 1980, pp. 157-164.

7. Xu, A., and Sarkar, S. L., (1994). “Microstructural development in high

volume fly-ash cement system”, Journal of Materials in Engineering,
V.6, No.1, 1994, pp. 117-136.

8. Lee, C. Y., Lee, H. K., and Lee, K. M., “Strength and micro structural
characteristics of chemically activated fly ash–cement systems”, Cement
and Concrete Research, V.33, 2003, pp. 425- 431.

9. Weiping Ma., Liu, C., Brown, P. W., and Komarneni, S., “Pore structures
of fly ashes activated by Ca(OH)2 and CaSO4"2H20”, Cement and
Concrete Research, V.25, 1995, pp. 417-425

10. Tanaka, K., and Kurumisawa, K., “Development of technique for

observing pores in hardened cement paste”, Cement and Concrete
Research, V.32, 2002, pp.1435-1441.

103
 Contd…
Contd …
11. Pradhan,B., Nagesh, M., and Bhattacharjee, B., “Prediction of hydraulic
diffusivity from pore size distribution of concrete”, Cement and concrete
research, V. 35, No. 9, 2005, pp.1724-1733.
12. Bhattacharjee, B., and Krishnamoorthy, S., “ Permeable porosity and
thermal conductivity of construction materials”, Journal of materials in
civil Engineering, V.16, No. 4, 2004, pp. 322-329.
13. Kumar, R., and Bhattacharjee, B., “Porosity, pore size distribution and in
situ strength of concrete”, Cement and concrete research, V. 33, No. 1,
2003, pp. 155-164.
14. Johansen, V., and Andersen, P. J., “Particle Packing and Concrete
Properties”, in Materials Science of Concrete II, The American ceramic
society, 1991, pp. 111-146.
15. Bager, D. H., and Sellevold, E. J., “Mercury porosimetry of hardened
cement pastes: the influence of particle size”, Cement and concrete
research, V. 5, No. 2, 1975, pp. 171-175.
16. Sellevold, E. J., “Mercury porosimetry of hardened cement paste cured
or stored at 97° C”, Cement and concrete research, V. 4, No. 3, 1974, pp.
399-404.

104
 Contd…
Contd …

17. Feldman, R. F., and Beaudoin, J. J., “Pretreatment of hardened hydrated

cement pastes for Mercury Intrusion Measurements”, Cement and
concrete research V. 21, 1991, pp. 297-308.
18. Kumar, R., and Bhattacharjee, B., “Study on some factors affecting the
results in the use of MIP method in concrete research”, Cement and
concrete research, V. 33, No. 3, 2003, pp. 417-424.
19. Cook, R. A., and Hover, K. C., “Mercury porosimetry of cement based
materials and associated correction factors”, ACI Materials
Journal, V.90, No. 2, March 1993, pp. 152-161.
20. www.curveexpert.webhop.biz
21. Soroka, I., “Portland cement paste and concrete”, New York: Chemical
publishing co., 1980.
22. Atzeni, C., Massidda, L., and Sanna, U., “Effect of Pore Size
Distribution on Strength of Hardened Cement Pastes”, Proceedings of
the first international RILEM congress on pore structure and materials
properties, Paris, 1987, pp. 195-202.

105
 Contd…
Contd …

23. Pann, K. S., Tsong Yen., Chao-Wei Tang., and T. D. Lin., “New Strength
Model Based On Water-Cement Ratio and Capillary Porosity”, ACI
Materials Journal, V. 100, No. 4, Jul-Aug. 2003, pp. 311-318.
24. Lam, L., Wong, Y. L., and Poon, C. S., “Degree of Hydration and
Gel/Space ratio of High-Volume Fly ash/Cement Systems”, Cement and
concrete research, V. 30, 2000, pp. 747-756.
25. Jennings, H. M., and Tennis, P. D., “Model for the Developing
Microstructure in Portland Cement Paste”, Journal of American ceramic
society, V. 77, 1994, pp. 3161-3172.
26. Neville, A. M., and Brooks, J. J., Concrete Technology”, Singapore:
Longman, 1990, 113 pp.
27. Aligizaki, K., “Determination of pore structure Parameters for hardened
cement based materials”, Thesis, pennsylvania state University, USA

106
107