NISTIR 7763

Optimization of Particle Sizes in High 

Volume Fly Ash Blended Cements

 

Dale P. Bentz

Chiara F. Ferraris

James J. Filliben

NISTIR 7763

Optimization of Particle Sizes in High 

Volume Fly Ash Blended Cements

Dale P. Bentz

Chiara F. Ferraris

Materials and Construction Research Division

Engineering Laboratory

James J. Filliben

Statistical Engineering Division

Information Technology Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Prepared for Roman Cement LLC

February 2011

U.S. Department of Commerce

Gary Locke, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Patrick D. Gallagher, Director

iii

Abstract

One major objective of the sustainable construction movement is to decrease the energy 

and carbon dioxide footprints of concrete. Since the production of portland cement is a major 

contributor in both of these areas, concretes with increasing quantities of supplementary 

cementitious materials replacing cement are drawing renewed interest. While cement is typically 

the majority component of the binder powder in a blended cement concrete, the physical and 

chemical properties of all of the powder components will strongly impact concrete performance. 

Following on a recent patent application filing by Roman Cement LLC on “High Early Strength 

Pozzolan Cement Blends” (patent granted in September 2010), the current study focuses on 

evaluating the properties of cement-fly ash blended cements, examining the influence of 

volumetric proportions of fly ash:cement and the individual particle size distributions (PSDs) of 

the cement and fly ash on a variety of performance properties including admixture requirements, 

setting times, heat release, strength, and autogenous deformation. Each of the three independent 

variables is examined at four different levels; a fractional factorial experimental design is 

employed to reduce the requisite number of mixtures from 64 to 16. To provide for the fairest 

comparison, all mortars are prepared with constant volume fractions of components: water, sand, 

and binder powders (cement + fly ash). The basic objective of the study is to evaluate if these 

blended cements can match the performance of a 100 % portland cement system, as exemplified 

by providing equivalent or superior strengths at both 1 d and 28 d. The results indicate that by 

controlling the PSDs of the cement and fly ash, 20 % fly ash replacements for cement on a 

volume basis can readily achieve this performance goal, while 35 % replacements can approach 

this goal and even achieve it when the fly ash source (class) is carefully selected.
iv
v

Table of Contents

Abstract........................................................................................................................................................ iii

List of Figures............................................................................................................................................... vi

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... vii

1 Introduction and Scope..............................................................................................................................1

2 Experimental Design and Material Characteristics....................................................................................2

3 Results........................................................................................................................................................7

3.1 Isothermal Calorimetry .......................................................................................................................7

3.2 Setting Times.......................................................................................................................................8

3.3 Semi-adiabatic Calorimetry.................................................................................................................9

3.4 Compressive Strength Testing of Mortar Cubes...............................................................................11

3.5 Compressive Strength vs. Heat Release Analysis..............................................................................24

3.6 Autogenous Deformation .................................................................................................................25

3.7 Autogenous Deformation vs. Strength Analysis...............................................................................27

4 Conclusions..............................................................................................................................................29

5 Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................30

6 References ...............................................................................................................................................31

Appendix A – Procedures for Determining HRWRA Dosages.....................................................................33

Appendix B – Measured Compressive Strength Values for all Mixtures....................................................36

Appendix C – Measured 28-d Net Autogenous Shrinkages for all Mixtures...............................................37
vi

List of Figures

Figure 1. Particle size distributions of the five cements shown as probability density functions. Each 

curve is the average of six individual measurements and the error bars (one standard deviation) would fall 

within the size of the shown symbols. ..........................................................................................................4

Figure 2. Particle size distributions of the five Class F fly ashes shown as probability distribution 

functions. Each curve is the average of six individual measurements and the error bars (one standard 

deviation) would fall within the size of the shown symbols.........................................................................4

Figure 3. Isothermal calorimetry results for mortar mixtures #9 (left) and #18 (right) indicating excellent 

repeatability between the two replicates in each case...................................................................................7

Figure 4. Cumulative heat release curves for the first 24 h of curing for the 20 mortar mixtures................8

Figure 5. Semi-adiabatic temperature curves for the first 48 h of curing for the 20 mortar mixtures. .......10

Figure 6. Regression analysis for maximum temperature vs. cement surface area (X variable 1), fly ash 

surface area (X variable 2), and fly ash volume fraction in percent (X variable 3)....................................11

Figure 7. One-day and 3-d mean compressive strengths for the 20 mortar mixtures investigated in the 

current study. Standard deviations are provided in Appendix B................................................................12

Figure 8. Seven-day and 28-d mean compressive strengths for the 20 mortar mixtures investigated in the 

current study. Standard deviations are provided in Appendix B................................................................12

Figure 9. 91-d and 182-d mean compressive strengths for the 20 mortar mixtures investigated in the 

current study. Standard deviations are provided in Appendix B................................................................13

Figure 10. Mean compressive strength at 1 d vs. the three factors of cement PSD, fly ash PSD, and fly ash 

volumetric proportion. ................................................................................................................................14

Figure 11. Regression analysis for strength at 1 d vs. cement surface area and fly ash volume fraction in 

percent.........................................................................................................................................................14

Figure 12. Regression analysis for strength at 1 d according to equation 1................................................15

Figure 13. Mean compressive strength at 3 d vs. the three factors of cement PSD, fly ash PSD, and fly ash 

volumetric proportion. ................................................................................................................................15

Figure 14. Regression analysis for strength at 3 d vs. cement surface area and fly ash volume fraction in 

percent.........................................................................................................................................................16

Figure 15. Regression analysis for strength at 3 d according to equation (1).............................................16

Figure 16 . Mean compressive strength at 7 d vs. the three factors of cement PSD, fly ash PSD, and fly 

ash volumetric proportion...........................................................................................................................17

Figure 17. Regression analysis for strength at 7 d vs. cement surface area and fly ash volume fraction in 

percent.........................................................................................................................................................17

Figure 18. Regression analysis for strength at 7 d according to equation (1).............................................18

Figure 19. Mean compressive strength at 28 d vs. the three factors of cement PSD, fly ash PSD, and fly 

ash volumetric proportion...........................................................................................................................18

Figure 20. Regression analysis for strength at 28 d vs. cement surface area, fly ash volume fraction in 

percent, and fly ash surface area. ................................................................................................................19

Figure 21. Regression analysis for strength at 28 d according to equation (1)...........................................19
vii

Figure 22. Mean compressive strength at 91 d vs. the three factors of cement PSD, fly ash PSD, and fly 

ash volumetric proportion...........................................................................................................................20

Figure 23. Regression analysis for strength at 91 d vs. fly ash volume fraction in percent and fly ash 

surface area. ................................................................................................................................................20

Figure 24. Regression analysis for strength at 91 d according to equation (1)...........................................21

Figure 25. Mean compressive strength at 182 d vs. the three factors of cement PSD, fly ash PSD, and fly 

ash volumetric proportion...........................................................................................................................21

Figure 26. Regression analysis for strength at 182 d vs. cement surface area, fly ash volume fraction in 

percent, and fly ash surface area. ................................................................................................................22

Figure 27. Regression analysis for strength at 182 d according to equation (1).........................................22

Figure 28. Plot of mean mortar cube compressive strengths vs. heat release for ages of 1 d, 3 d, and 7 d, 

indicating a generally linear relationship....................................................................................................24

Figure 29. Regression analysis for fit of 1 d, 3 d, and 7 d compressive strength vs. cumulative heat release 

measured at the same ages. .........................................................................................................................25

Figure 30. Autogenous deformation measured during the course of 56 d for mortar mixture #17, providing 

an indication of typical measurement variability........................................................................................26

Figure 31. Mean net autogenous shrinkage (deformation) at 28 d vs. the three factors of cement PSD, fly 

ash PSD, and fly ash/cement ratio. .............................................................................................................26

Figure 32. Regression analysis for net autogenous shrinkage at 28 d vs. cement surface area, fly ash 

volume fraction in percent, and fly ash surface area...................................................................................27

Figure 33. 28-d net autogenous shrinkage vs. 28-d compressive strength..................................................28

Figure 34: Bingham model and calculation of the plastic viscosity and yield stress..................................33

List of Tables

Table 1. Experimental design employed in the present study.......................................................................3

Table 2. PSD-estimated surface areas for the powder materials...................................................................5

Table 3. Measured fresh properties of mortar mixtures................................................................................6

Table 4. Setting times (ASTM C191) of pastes from a subset of the mortar mixtures.................................9

Table 5. Linear regression coefficients vs. age for compressive strength data for primary independent 

variables......................................................................................................................................................23

Table 6. Linear regression coefficients vs. age for compressive strength data according to equation (1)..23

Table 7: Results of rheological tests...........................................................................................................35

Table 8. Measured mortar cube compressive strengths (means and standard deviations) for the 20 mortar 

mixtures at each of six different ages..........................................................................................................36

Table 9. Measured 28-d net autogenous shrinkages for the 20 mortar mixtures. .......................................37
1

1 Introduction and Scope

It is well established that the particle size distribution (PSD) of the cement plays a major 

role in influencing the fresh and hardened properties of cement-based materials, particularly at 

early ages [1-4]. In fact, one of the major trends in concrete technology in the past fifty years 

has been a consistent increase in the fineness of cement [5], mainly to provide increased earlyage strengths to support fast track construction. While these cements are typically optimized for 

utilization in ordinary portland cement concretes, another more recent trend, partially in response 

to an increased focus on sustainability, is an increase in the utilization of supplementary 

cementitious materials (SCMs) such as slag, fly ash, and silica fume in concretes. Cements that 

are optimized for a 100 % cement binder may not be optimized for utilization in a blended 

product. With this in mind, Roman Cement LLC has recently filed a patent for “High Early 

Strength Pozzolan Cement Blends,” where the PSDs of both the cement and pozzolan are 

controlled to produce “optimum” (early age) properties [6]. For example, delayed setting times 

and low early age strengths are two of the most common problems associated with the 

production of high volume fly ash (HVFA) concretes [7]. With this in mind, the purpose of the 

ongoing Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) between Roman Cement 

LLC and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is to conduct a statisticallydesigned experiment to determine the influence of cement and fly ash particle characteristics on 

a variety of performance variables including high range water-reducing admixture requirements, 

heat release, semi-adiabatic temperature rise, setting times, strength development at both early 

and later ages, and autogenous deformation. The basic premise is that blending a finer cement 

with a coarser fly ash may produce a superior product, in terms of increasing early age strengths 

while maintaining later age performance. The present report summarizes and interprets the 

experimental results obtained in this study.
2

2 Experimental Design and Material Characteristics

A commercially available Type I/II (ASTM C150 [8]) cement and a Class F fly ash 

(ASTM C618 [9]) were obtained by Roman Cement LLC from their respective manufacturers. 

According to its manufacturer, the cement has a Blaine fineness of 376 m2

/kg and a potential 

Bogue phase composition of 57 % C3S, 15 % C2S, 7 % C3A, and 10 % C4AF by mass. Its 

measured density is 3200 kg/m3 ± 10 kg/m3 (ASTM C188 [8]). According to its manufacturer, 

the Class F fly ash contains major oxides of 52.9 % SiO2, 26.4 % Al2O3, 8.5 % Fe2O3, and 2.1 % 

CaO by mass, with measured strength activity indices (ASTM C311/ASTM C618 [9]) of 88 % 

and 92 % at 7 d and 28 d, respectively. Its density is reported as 2300 kg/m3 by the 

manufacturer. For one mixture, a Type III cement [4,8] with a density of 3250 kg/m3 and a 

Blaine fineness of 613 m2

/kg was employed.

Three variables were selected as candidates for influencing the optimization of properties 

of cement/fly ash blends: cement PSD, fly ash PSD, and fly ash volumetric proportion 

percentage. Since the goal of this project was to evaluate the performance of “fine” cements 

blended with “coarse” fly ashes, the cement PSDs were characterized by their D90

1

 1 D90 indicates that 90 % of the particles on a mass basis are below a given size (diameter) while D10

indicates that 10 % of the particles on a mass basis are below a given diameter.

value while 

those of the fly ashes were characterized by their D10 value instead. Via grinding and 

classification, four cements with target D90 values of 7.5 μm, 10 μm, 15 μm, and 20 μm were 

obtained by Roman Cement and supplied to NIST, while four fly ashes with target D10 values of 

5 μm, 10 μm, 15 μm, and 20 μm were also produced. The actual measured D90 values for the 

four cements were nominally 9 μm (cement 10), 11 μm (cement 9), 12 μm (cement 8), and 24 

μm (cement 7), in contrast to the D90 of 36 μm for the original cement (cement 6). The actual

measured fly ash D10 values were nominally 4 μm (fly ash 5), 11 μm (fly ash 4), 13 μm (fly ash 

3), and 15 μm (fly ash 2) in contrast to 2.7 μm as measured for the original fly ash (fly ash 1). 

Finally, the four levels for the fly ash volume percentage were set at 20 %, 35 %, 50 %, and 

65 %. Since three variables with four levels implies 64 runs for a complete factorial experiment, 

the number of experimental runs was reduced to 16 by applying design of experiment principles 

to create a fractional factorial experimental design [10]. The selected experimental design with 

both encoded-level (0, 1, 2, and 3) variables and original values is provided in Table 1. In 

addition to these sixteen mortar mixtures, four additional mixtures were investigated: 1) a control 

mixture produced with the original cement (two replicates prepared), 2) a 50:50 volumetric blend 

of the original cement and original fly ash as a reference point for the performance of an existing 

HVFA blend, 3) a mixture containing 35 % of an unprocessed (no grinding or subsequent 

classification) Class C fly ash with 65 % of the cement 9 with a D90 of 11 μm, to investigate the 

influence of fly ash class on early and later age performance, and 4) a mixture with a Type III 

cement and 35 % of the 4 μm Class F fly ash to provide a reference point to the current industry 

practice of sometimes employing a Type III cement in concrete during winter construction. The 

control and 50:50 reference mixtures were the first two to be prepared. Following this, the run 

order of the next 16 mixtures was randomized as shown in Table 1. After these sixteen mixtures 

were prepared, a replicate of the control mixture was executed. Next, the mixture with 35 % of a 
3

Class C fly ash was prepared and evaluated. Finally, the mixture with the Type III cement was 

prepared.

Table 1. Experimental design employed in the present study.

Mixture 

order

(3-18)

Encoded Variable Levels Original (targeted) variables

HRWRA 

dosage 

(g HRWRA/

100 g binder)

D90

Cement 

(μm)

[ID #]

D10

Fly ash 

(μm)

[ID #]

Volumetric 

fly ash

content (%)

A=cement 

PSD

B=fly 

ash 

PSD

C= FA 

content = 

(A+B) mod 4

9 0 0 0 7.5 [10] 5 [5] 20 1.00

10 0 1 1 7.5 [10] 10 [4] 35 0.67

12 0 2 2 7.5 [10] 15 [3] 50 0.05

7 0 3 3 7.5 [10] 20 [2] 65 0.00

8 1 0 1 10 [9] 5 [5] 35 0.48

6 1 1 2 10 [9] 10 [4] 50 0.28

18 1 2 3 10 [9] 15 [3] 65 0.00

17 1 3 0 10 [9] 20 [2] 20 1.00

16 2 0 2 15 [8] 5 [5] 50 0.05

11 2 1 3 15 [8] 10 [4] 65 0.00

14 2 2 0 15 [8] 15 [3] 20 0.80

5 2 3 1 15 [8] 20 [2] 35 0.37

15 3 0 3 20 [7] 5 [5] 65 0.00

13 3 1 0 20 [7] 10 [4] 20 0.05

3 3 2 1 20 [7] 15 [3] 35 0.00

4 3 3 2 20 [7] 20 [2] 50 0.00

The particle size distributions (PSDs) of the original and processed cements and fly ashes 

were measured using a laser diffraction technique and are provided in Figures 1 and 2. Based on 

these measured PSDs and assuming spherical particles, the cement and fly ash surface areas

(Table 2) were calculated for each mortar mixture examined in the present study, and considered 

to be a more quantitative variable than the targeted D90 or D10 values for representing the two 

powder components of the mixtures in subsequent regression analysis. In Table 2, it can be 

observed that the PSD-estimated surface area for cement 6, 485 m2

/kg, is significantly higher 

than its Blaine value of 376 m

2

/kg.

Because the mortars were prepared with constant mixture volume fractions of 

water (0.24), sand (0.55), and binder (cement + fly ash, 0.21)2

 2 The water-to-cement ratio by mass (w/c) of the control mortar was 0.35. For the 20 %, 35 %, 50 %, and 

65 % mixtures, the corresponding water-to-cementitious materials ratios (w/cm) on a mass basis were 

0.365, 0.386, 0.406, and 0.427, respectively.

, the addition of a high range water 

reducing admixture (HRWRA) was necessary in some of the mixtures to maintain adequate flow 

and workability for specimen preparation. A polycarboxylate-type HRWRA known to produce 

minimal retardation was selected for this purpose. Screening studies were first conducted by 
4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0.1 1 10 100

Differential [%]

Size [μm]

Original

D90-24.3

D90-12.1

D90-10.8

D90-8.6

Figure 1. Particle size distributions of the five cements shown as probability density 

functions. Each curve is the average of six individual measurements and the error bars 

(one standard deviation) would fall within the size of the shown symbols.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0.1 1 10 100 1000

Differential [%]

Size [μm]

Original

D10-14.8

D10-13.0

D10-10.8

D10-4.2

Figure 2. Particle size distributions of the five Class F fly ashes shown as probability 

distribution functions. Each curve is the average of six individual measurements and the 

error bars (one standard deviation) would fall within the size of the shown symbols.
5

Table 2. PSD-estimated surface areas for the powder materials.

Cement or Fly Ash ID PSD-estimated surface area (m2/kg)

Fly ash 1 432

Fly ash 2 103

Fly ash 3 96

Fly ash 4 114

Fly ash 5 379

Cement 6 485

Cement 7 670

Cement 8 964

Cement 9 1017

Cement 10 1096

performing rheological measurements in blended cement pastes with various addition levels of 

the HRWRA as described in detail in Appendix A. The final HRWRA dosages employed in 

each mortar are included in Table 1. Regardless of the measured flow values, all mortar 

mixtures exhibited sufficient workability to mold mortar cubes for compressive strength testing 

and corrugated tubes for measurement of autogenous deformation (ASTM C1698 [9]). No 

HRWRA addition was required for either the control mixture (#1) or the reference 50:50 

mixture (#2). For mortar mixture #19 prepared with 35 % of the Class C fly ash, a HRWRA 

dosage of 0.67 g of HRWRA per 100 g binder was employed, while a dosage of 0.48 g HRWRA 

per 100 g binder was required for mortar mixture #20 prepared with the Type III cement. As 

expected, mixtures with a higher cement content (lower fly ash proportion) or employing a finer 

cement required a higher dosage of the HRWRA to provide sufficient flow. For these dosages, 

the flows measured on the mortar mixtures (ASTM C1437 [8]) are summarized in Table 3. 

Each fresh mortar mixture was evaluated for air content via unit weight (cup) 

measurements according to ASTM C185 [8] and temperature (see Table 3), in addition to flow. 

Then, appropriate specimens were prepared for the following measurements: 

1) Isothermal calorimetry – the heat of hydration was measured during the course of 7 d on premixed (as opposed to being mixed in situ in the calorimeter cells) sealed mortar samples with a 

mass of about 8 g using a TAM Air Calorimeter3

2) Semi-adiabatic calorimetry – the semi-adiabatic temperature was measured during the course 

of 3 d on a single sealed mortar specimen with a mass of approximately 330 g using a custombuilt semi-adiabatic calorimeter unit [11]; replicate specimens from separate batches have 

indicated a standard deviation of 1.4 °C in the maximum specimen temperature achieved during 

a 3 d test,

; to provide an indication of variability, two 

specimens from the same batch were evaluated in neighboring calorimeter cells for each 

experiment,

3) Compressive strength – measured at 1 d, 3 d, 7 d, 28 d, 91 d, and 182 d on mortar cube 

specimens cured in a saturated calcium hydroxide solution, according to the procedures in 

ASTM C 109 [8], but with a loading rate of 20.7 MPa/min, switching to deformation control (at 

 3 Certain commercial products are identified in this report to specify the materials used and procedures 

employed. In no case does such identification imply endorsement by the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, nor does it indicate that the products are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
6

Table 3. Measured fresh properties of mortar mixtures.

Mortar mixture Flow table value (%) Air content (%) Temperature (°C)

1 (Control) 114, 92.7 2.25, 2.32 23, 23

2 135 1.41 22

3 105 2.49 21

4 104 3.40 22

5 98 4.00 21

6 103 3.56 21

7 84.7 2.68 21

8 103 3.47 23

9 98 4.11 25

10 109 3.53 25

11 107 2.17 23

12 84.7 3.05 24

13 92 3.23 23

14 135 3.87 25

15 134 1.93 23

16 85.3 2.20 24

17 131 4.63 24

18 93.3 2.25 23

19 (C ash) 125 4.38 25

20 (Type III cement) Not measured 3.74 25

the instantaneous deformation rate) once a stress of 13.8 MPa was reached; three specimens 

prepared from a single batch were evaluated at each time, with the averages and standard 

deviations provided in the results to follow (see Appendix A), and

4) Autogenous deformation – measured on triplicate or duplicate sealed mortar specimens 

prepared from a single batch, sealed in corrugated tubes according to the procedures in ASTM 

C1698 [9]; in the ASTM C1698 standard, the single laboratory precision is listed as 30 

microstrain for mortar specimens.

A subset of the mixtures (#1, #2, #8, #9, and #14) were evaluated with respect to setting 

time by performing ASTM C191 [8] measurements on cement pastes prepared in a high shear 

blender, but with the following modification to better prevent any evaporation from the specimen 

during the course of the test [12]. A moist sponge was held in place in the bottom of a foam cup 

using toothpicks, and the inverted cup placed on top of the truncated conical cement paste 

specimen, in an effort to maintain a near 100 % relative humidity environment surrounding the 

hardening cement paste. The cup was removed prior to each measurement and returned 

immediately after recording the needle penetration. In addition to this, the mass of the specimen 

and its holder (conical mold and bottom plate) was determined at the beginning of the test and 

immediately after final set was achieved. Typical mass loss is less than 0.5 % (specimen basis) 

even for specimens with final setting times of 8 h or more [12], indicating minimal evaporation 

during the course of the measurement. All set time measurements were conducted inside a walkin environmental chamber maintained at (25.0 ± 1.0) °C. In the ASTM C191 standard [8], the 

single laboratory precisions are listed as 12 min and 20 min for initial and final times of setting, 

respectively. 
7

3 Results

3.1 Isothermal Calorimetry

The typical variability between the two isothermal calorimetry specimens was quite low. 

Representative plots from two of the mortar mixtures (#9 and #18) shown in Figure 3 show that 

the two curves are basically indistinguishable from one another, as is generally observed when 

performing this measurement [4,13].

0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

0.007

0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168

Heat flow (W/g cement)

Time (h)

9-20 % FA rep1

9-20 % FA rep2

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168

Heat flow (W/g cement)

Time (h)

18 -65 % FA rep1

18- 65 % FA rep2

Figure 3.Isothermal calorimetry results for mortar mixtures #9 (left) and #18 (right) 

indicating excellent repeatability between the two replicates in each case.

Heat flow results such as those in Figure 3 can be readily integrated and normalized to 

produce plots of cumulative heat (J/cm3 mortar) for the 20 mixtures. These cumulative heat 

results for the first 24 h of curing are provided in two plots in Figure 4. Due to their finer 

cements, the blended mixtures with 20 % fly ash (#9, #13, #14, and #17) generally exceed the 

cumulative heat produced in the control (100 % original cement) mortar, while some of the 35 % 

fly ash mixtures (#8 and #10) approach the control value. The relationship between cumulative 

heat release and compressive strength development at the early ages of 1 d, 3 d, and 7 d will be 

explored further later in this report. In comparison to the control mortar, nearly all of the mortars 

exhibit a mild (on the order of 1 h to 2 h) retardation, with the exception of mortar mixture #9 

that contains 20 % fly ash and the finest cement 10. This can be observed in the plots by 

identifying, for example, the time at which a cumulative heat release of 20 J/cm3 mortar is 

achieved, nominally 4 h for the control mortar. Contributors to this mild retardation could 

include the (pore solution) dilution of the more reactive cement by less reactive fly ash, chemical 

interactions of the fly ash with the cement reactions, and the addition of the HRWRA, although 

the latter was selected especially to minimize such effects and some of the mixtures exhibiting 

retardation in Figure 4 were produced without any HRWRA. These retarding effects are 

partially offset by the utilization of finer cements, as increasing cement fineness generally 

accelerates the hydration reactions slightly (on the order of 1 h for switching from a Type I/II 

cement to a Type III cement in HVFA mortars, for example [7]). As has been observed in 

previous studies [7], the Class C fly ash (mixture #19) exhibited a significant retardation, 

achieving a cumulative heat release of 20 J/cm3 mortar only after 6 h.
8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

Cumulative heat (J/cm3 mortar)

Time (h)

Cement only 1 2- 50 % FA

3- 35 % FA 4- 50 % FA

5- 35 % FA 6- 50 % FA

7-65 % FA 8- 35 % FA

9- 20 % FA 10- 35 % FA

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

Cumulative heat (J/cm3 mortar)

Time (h)

Cement only 1 11- 65 % FA

12- 50 % FA 13- 20 % FA

14- 20 % FA 15- 65 % FA

16- 50 % FA 17- 20 % FA

18- 65 % FA 19- 35 % C ash

20 - Type III cem

Figure 4. Cumulative heat release curves for the first 24 h of curing for the 20 mortar 

mixtures.

3.2 Setting Times

Since isothermal calorimetry is a direct indication of the extent of the hydration reactions, 

but not of the setting process [13], a subset of the mortar mixtures were selected and their 

component pastes evaluated using the ASTM C191 standard test method for needle 

penetration [8]. Relative to the control mixture (#1), the results in Table 4 indicate both minor 

decreases in setting (#9) and increases on the order of 1 h (#8, #14). The most extreme delays in 

setting are observed for mixture #2, consisting of a 50:50 mixture of the original cement and fly 
9

ash. As mentioned for the extent of hydration in the previous section, the utilization of a finer 

cement helps to offset the delays in setting that are typically produced in HVFA mixtures.

Table 4. Setting times (ASTM C191) of pastes from a subset of the mortar mixtures.

Setting times (min)

Paste/Mortar 

ID

Fly ash (%) Cement ID

[D90]

Fly ash ID

[D10]

Initial set Final set

1 0 6 [36 μm] -- 168 214

2 50 6 [36 μm] 1 [2.7 μm] 258 318

8 35 9 [11 μm] 5 [4 μm] 227 267

9 20 10 [9 μm] 5 [4 μm] 131 168

14 20 8 [12 μm] 3 [13 μm] 220 255

3.3 Semi-adiabatic Calorimetry

The semi-adiabatic temperature curves for the first 48 h of curing for each of the 20

mortar mixtures are provided in Figure 5, with a linear regression analysis for the maximum 

temperature given in Figure 6. By observing the curves themselves and the results of the 

regression analysis, it is clear that fly ash volume fraction has a major influence on temperature 

rise as the less reactive fly ash dilutes the more reactive cement, generating less heat and 

lowering the measured temperature rise. Thus, mixtures with the lowest fly ash content of 20 %

(#9, #14, and #17) generally exceed the temperature rise of the control mortar, due to their 

incorporation of a finer, more reactive cement. Two of the mixtures with 35 % fly ash (#8 and 

#10) approach the temperature rise of the control, while those with either 50 % or 65 % fly ash

exhibit much smaller temperature rises. This is in accord with the general practice of employing 

higher contents of fly ash in mass concrete to limit its temperature rise [5]. According to the 

regression analysis, cement fineness and fly ash fineness have much smaller influences on the 

semi-adiabatic response. Because of its greater retardation noted above, the Class C fly ash 

mixture #19 produced a slightly delayed and suppressed temperature peak relative to the mixture 

#8 with the same cement and 35 % of a Class F fly ash (which could be a benefit in mass 

concrete construction).
10

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48

Temperature (°C)

Time (h)

Mortar 1 Mortar 2

Mortar 3 Mortar 4

Mortar 5 Mortar 6

Mortar 7 Mortar 8

Mortar 9 Mortar 10

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48

Temperature (°C)

Time (h)

Mortar 1 Mortar 11

Mortar 12 Mortar 13

Mortar 14 Mortar 15

Mortar 16 Mortar 17

Mortar 18 Mortar 19

Mortar 20

Figure 5. Semi-adiabatic temperature curves for the first 48 h of curing for the 20 mortar 

mixtures.
11

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.973

R Square 0.947

Adjusted R Square 0.934

Standard Uncertainty 1.099

Observations 16

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 3 258.670 86.223 71.440 6.367E-08

Residual 12 14.483 1.207

Total 15 273.153

Coefficients Standard Uncertainty t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%

Intercept 44.367 1.809 24.526 1.274E-11 40.4253 48.3080 40.4253 48.3080

X Variable 1 -2.649E-03 1.706E-03 -1.553 1.465E-01 -0.0064 0.0011 -0.0064 0.0011

X Variable 2 6.010E-03 2.306E-03 2.606 2.296E-02 0.0010 0.0110 0.0010 0.0110

X Variable 3 -0.235 0.016 -14.322 6.589E-09 -0.2702 -0.1989 -0.2702 -0.1989

Figure 6. Regression analysis for maximum temperature vs. cement surface area 

(X variable 1), fly ash surface area (X variable 2), and fly ash volume fraction in percent 

(X variable 3).

3.4 Compressive Strength Testing of Mortar Cubes4

The measured compressive strength test results (means and standard deviations) are 

detailed in Appendix B. Bar charts for the measured mean strengths for the 20 mixtures at ages 

of 1 d and 3 d, 7 d and 28 d, and 91 d and 182 d are provided below in Figures 7, 8, and 9, 

respectively. A major goal of the current project was to produce a blended cement mortar with 

equivalent or superior 1 d and 28 d compressive strengths when compared with the control 

mortar, all prepared with an equal volume fraction of water. Clearly, most of the blended 

cements prepared with 20 % fly ash achieved this goal. For a 35 % fly ash replacement, only the 

more reactive (unclassified) Class C fly ash was able to produce a mortar satisfying this 

objective. It is worth noting that at the latest evaluation age of 182 d, several of the 35 % (Class 

F and Class C) fly ash mortars achieved or exceeded the strength measured on the control 

mortar. 

In contrast to mixture #20 that was prepared with a commercially available Type III 

cement and 35 % fly ash, the mixtures prepared with 35 % fly ash and cements #8, #9, or #10 

provided higher compressive strengths, while that prepared with cement #7 failed to achieve the 

strengths provided by the Type III mixture (#20). As can be seen in Table 2, cements #8, #9, 

and #10 indeed have a higher fineness than the Type III cement (Blaine value of 613 m2

/kg), 

while cement #7 is likely slightly coarser than the Type III cement, taking into account the 

differences between PSD-estimated and Blaine finenesses, as demonstrated for the original 

cement in this study (485 m2

/kg vs. 386 m

2

/kg).

 4 In this report, all strength results are reported in the non-SI units of psi, as these are the units commonly 

employed and best recognized by the U.S. construction industry (1000 psi= 6.895 MPa). 
12

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1 3

Strength (psi)

Time (d)

Control

50 % FA

35 % FA 3 - Cem 7

35 % FA 2 - Cem 8

35 % FA 5 - Cem 9

35 % FA 4 - Cem 10

35 % C ash - Cem 9

35 % FA 5- Type III

50 % FA 2 - Cem 7

50 % FA 5 - Cem 8

50 % FA 4- Cem 9

50 % FA 3 - Cem 10

65 % FA 5 - Cem 7

65 % FA 4 - Cem 8

65 % FA 3 - Cem 9

65 % FA 2- Cem 10

20 % FA 4 - Cem 7

20 % FA 3 - Cem 8

20 % FA 2 - Cem 9

20 % FA 5 - Cem 10

Figure 7. One-day and 3-d mean compressive strengths for the 20 mortar mixtures 

investigated in the current study. Standard deviations are provided in Appendix B.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

7 28

Strength (psi)

Time (d)

Control

50 % FA

35 % FA 3 - Cem 7

35 % FA 2 - Cem 8

35 % FA 5 - Cem 9

35 % FA 4 - Cem 10

35 % C ash - Cem 9

35 % FA 5- Type III

50 % FA 2 - Cem 7

50 % FA 5 - Cem 8

50 % FA 4- Cem 9

50 % FA 3 - Cem 10

65 % FA 5 - Cem 7

65 % FA 4 - Cem 8

65 % FA 3 - Cem 9

65 % FA 2- Cem 10

20 % FA 4 - Cem 7

20 % FA 3 - Cem 8

20 % FA 2 - Cem 9

20 % FA 5 - Cem 10

Figure 8. Seven-day and 28-d mean compressive strengths for the 20 mortar mixtures 

investigated in the current study. Standard deviations are provided in Appendix B.
13

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

91 182

Strength (psi)

Time (d)

Control

50 % FA

35 % FA 3 - Cem 7

35 % FA 2 - Cem 8

35 % FA 5 - Cem 9

35 % FA 4 - Cem 10

35 % C ash - Cem 9

50 % FA 2 - Cem 7

50 % FA 5 - Cem 8

50 % FA 4- Cem 9

50 % FA 3 - Cem 10

65 % FA 5 - Cem 7

65 % FA 4 - Cem 8

65 % FA 3 - Cem 9

65 % FA 2- Cem 10

20 % FA 4 - Cem 7

20 % FA 3 - Cem 8

20 % FA 2 - Cem 9

20 % FA 5 - Cem 10

Figure 9. 91-d and 182-d mean compressive strengths for the 20 mortar mixtures 

investigated in the current study. Standard deviations are provided in Appendix B.

For each of the ages at which strength testing was conducted, graphical and regression 

analysis results are presented, followed by a brief discussion of these results. The design of 

experiment (DEX) arithmetic mean plots shown in the figures represent the mean values of the 

measured strengths for each of the three variables at each of the four levels investigated in the 

study. These plots clearly indicate the magnitude of any influence each variable has on the 

compressive strength at a given age. To quantify these influences, linear regression analysis was 

conducted to determine equations representing the best-fit relationships between the independent 

variables (cement surface area, fly ash surface area, and fly ash volumetric proportion) and the 

dependent response (compressive strength at a given age). The regression analyses presented in 

the following figures are those obtained after first discarding any of the independent variables 

that do not have a significant influence on strength at a given age. For example, fly ash surface 

area did not exhibit a significant influence on measured strength at the ages of 1 d, 3 d, and 7 d, 

while cement surface area was not significant at an age of 91 d. For each age, the best fit to the 

experimental data (lowest standard uncertainty) was obtained by using the PSD-estimated 

surface areas of the cement and fly ash as independent variables, as opposed to either the 

targeted D90 and D10 values or the measured D90 and D10 values. 

For each age, a second set of regression analyses was conducted using the following 

equation, containing the absolute surface areas of the cement and fly ash in each mixture:

σ(t)=At+Bt*CSA*ρcem*(1-FA/100)+Ct*FASA*ρFA*(FA/100)+Dt*FA (1)

where σ(t) is the compressive strength at time t, CSA is the cement surface area, ρcem is the 

specific gravity of the cement (3.2), FASA is the fly ash surface area, ρFA is the specific gravity 

of the fly ash (2.3), FA is the fly ash volume fraction in percent, and At, Bt, Ct, and Dt are the 

regression coefficients. In general, this model provided slightly improved fits (higher R) relative 

to those obtained using only the three primary independent variables, particularly at early ages.
14

Compressive strength at 1 d

Figure 10. Mean compressive strength at 1 d vs. the three factors of cement PSD, fly ash 

PSD, and fly ash volumetric proportion.

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.976

R Square 0.952

Adjusted R Square 0.944

Standard Uncertainty 611.473

Observations 16

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 2 95831692.145 47915846.072 128.1517 2.7801E-09

Residual 13 4860691.735 373899.364

Total 15 100692383.879

Coefficients Standard Uncertainty t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept 5896.280 982.735 6.000 4.447E-05 3773.210 8019.349

Cement surface area 4.708 0.950 4.955 2.632E-04 2.655 6.760

Fly ash volume fraction -138.766 9.115 -15.223 1.150E-09 -158.459 -119.074

Figure 11. Regression analysis for strength at 1 d vs. cement surface area and fly ash

volume fraction in percent.
15

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.991

R Square 0.982

Adjusted R Square 0.978

Standard Uncertainty 386.117

Observations 16

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 3 98903348.33 32967782.78 221.132 9.155E-11

Residual 12 1789035.546 149086.295

Total 15 100692383.9

Coefficients Standard Uncertainty t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

At 1874.607 975.002 1.923 0.0786 -249.740 3998.954

Bt 2.813 0.313 8.981 1.129E-06 2.130 3.495

Ct 1.163 0.772 1.507 0.1576 -0.518 2.844

Dt -59.076 11.355 -5.203 0.00022 -83.817 -34.336

Figure 12. Regression analysis for strength at 1 d according to equation 1.

Compressive strength at 3 d

Figure 13. Mean compressive strength at 3 d vs. the three factors of cement PSD, fly ash 

PSD, and fly ash volumetric proportion.
16

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.985

R Square 0.971

Adjusted R Square 0.966

Standard Uncertainty 542.697

Observations 16

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 2 127153255.207 63576627.603 215.865 1.067E-10

Residual 13 3828766.153 294520.473

Total 15 130982021.360

Coefficients Standard Uncertainty t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept 8936.524 872.201 10.246 1.356E-07 7052.248 10820.801

Cement surface area 4.042 0.843 4.794 3.506E-04 2.221 5.864

Fly ash volume fraction -163.561 8.090 -20.217 3.314E-11 -181.038 -146.083

Figure 14. Regression analysis for strength at 3 d vs. cement surface area and fly ash

volume fraction in percent.

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.996

R Square 0.992

Adjusted R Square 0.990

Standard Uncertainty 288.204

Observations 16

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 3 129985286 43328428.68 521.644 5.676E-13

Residual 12 996735.3314 83061.278

Total 15 130982021.4

Coefficients Standard Uncertainty t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

At 5366.975 727.756 7.375 8.563E-06 3781.331 6952.620

Bt 2.454 0.234 10.498 2.113E-07 1.945 2.963

Ct 1.522 0.576 2.643 0.0215 0.267 2.777

Dt -96.053 8.475 -11.333 9.120E-08 -114.519 -77.587

Figure 15. Regression analysis for strength at 3 d according to equation (1).
17

Compressive strength at 7 d

Figure 16 . Mean compressive strength at 7 d vs. the three factors of cement PSD, fly ash 

PSD, and fly ash volumetric proportion.

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.990

R Square 0.981

Adjusted R Square 0.978

Standard Uncertainty 496.773

Observations 16

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 2 165964808.925 82982404.462 336.256 6.405E-12

Residual 13 3208185.240 246783.480

Total 15 169172994.164

Coefficients Standard Uncertainty t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept 11577.189 798.394 14.501 2.095E-09 9852.365 13302.014

Cement surface area 3.644 0.772 4.721 4.000E-04 1.976 5.311

Fly ash volume fraction -188.836 7.405 -25.500 1.738E-12 -204.834 -172.837

Figure 17. Regression analysis for strength at 7 d vs. cement surface area and fly ash

volume fraction in percent.
18

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.997

R Square 0.993

Adjusted R Square 0.991

Standard Uncertainty 310.358

Observations 16

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 3 168017130.3 56005710.08 581.443 2.975E-13

Residual 12 1155863.912 96321.993

Total 15 169172994.2

Coefficients Standard Uncertainty t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

At 8407.477 783.699 10.728 1.668E-07 6699.944 10115.011

Bt 2.196 0.252 8.724 1.533E-06 1.647 2.744

Ct 1.107 0.620 1.784 0.0997 -0.245 2.458

Dt -127.408 9.127 -13.959 8.817E-09 -147.294 -107.522

Figure 18. Regression analysis for strength at 7 d according to equation (1).

Compressive strength at 28 d

Figure 19. Mean compressive strength at 28 d vs. the three factors of cement PSD, fly ash 

PSD, and fly ash volumetric proportion.
19

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.990

R Square 0.981

Adjusted R Square 0.976

Standard Uncertainty 559.987

Observations 16

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 3 189354332.018 63118110.673 201.279 1.592E-10

Residual 12 3763029.087 313585.757

Total 15 193117361.104

Coefficients Standard Uncertainty t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept 15046.876 922.708 16.307 1.489E-09 13036.467 17057.284

Cement surface area 1.736 0.870 1.995 6.928E-02 -0.160 3.631

Fly ash volume fraction -203.306 8.348 -24.354 1.384E-11 -221.494 -185.117

Fly ash surface area 3.047 1.175 2.592 2.356E-02 0.486 5.607

Figure 20. Regression analysis for strength at 28 d vs. cement surface area, fly ash volume 

fraction in percent, and fly ash surface area.

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.992

R Square 0.983

Adjusted R Square 0.979

Standard Uncertainty 521.599

Observations 16

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 3 189852576.3 63284192 232.607 6.796E-11

Residual 12 3264784.832 272065.4

Total 15 193117361.1

Coefficients Standard Uncertainty t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

At 13198.679 1317.114 10.021 3.501E-07 10328.934 16068.423

Bt 1.335 0.423 3.155 0.0083 0.413 2.257

Ct 2.239 1.042 2.148 0.0528 -0.032 4.509

Dt -172.202 15.339 -11.226 1.013E-07 -205.623 -138.781

Figure 21. Regression analysis for strength at 28 d according to equation (1).
20

Compressive strength at 91 d

Figure 22. Mean compressive strength at 91 d vs. the three factors of cement PSD, fly ash 

PSD, and fly ash volumetric proportion.

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.993

R Square 0.986

Adjusted R Square 0.984

Standard Uncertainty 417.676

Observations 16

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 2 162929231.901 81464615.950 466.971 7.844E-13

Residual 13 2267893.517 174453.347

Total 15 165197125.418

Coefficients Standard Uncertainty t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept 17030.992 322.435 52.820 1.474E-16 16334.414 17727.571

Fly ash volume fraction -187.001 6.226 -30.034 2.141E-13 -200.452 -173.550

Fly ash surface area 4.952 0.877 5.649 7.943E-05 3.058 6.846

Figure 23. Regression analysis for strength at 91 d vs. fly ash volume fraction in percent

and fly ash surface area.
21

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.992

R Square 0.983

Adjusted R Square 0.979

Standard Uncertainty 476.787

Observations 16

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 3 162469215.6 54156405 238.233 5.904E-11

Residual 12 2727909.776 227325.8

Total 15 165197125.4

Coefficients Standard Uncertainty t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

At 16326.205 1203.957 13.560 1.225E-08 13703.008 18949.402

Bt 0.521 0.387 1.347 0.203 -0.321 1.364

Ct 4.367 0.953 4.584 0.00063 2.291 6.443

Dt -188.770 14.021 -13.463 1.329E-08 -219.319 -158.220

Figure 24. Regression analysis for strength at 91 d according to equation (1).

Compressive strength at 182 d

Figure 25. Mean compressive strength at 182 d vs. the three factors of cement PSD, fly ash 

PSD, and fly ash volumetric proportion.
22

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.985

R Square 0.971

Adjusted R Square 0.964

Standard Uncertainty 554.678

Observations 16

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 3 123260247.1 41086749.05 133.5428 1.752E-09

Residual 12 3692007.817 307667.318

Total 15 126952255

Coefficients Standard Uncertainty t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept 18012.672 913.959 19.708 1.656E-10 16021.325 20004.019

Cement surface area -0.989 0.862 -1.147 0.274 -2.866 0.889

Fly ash volume fraction -162.767 8.269 -19.685 1.679E-10 -180.782 -144.751

Fly ash surface area 4.003 1.164 3.438 0.00491 1.466 6.539

Figure 26. Regression analysis for strength at 182 d vs. cement surface area, fly ash volume 

fraction in percent, and fly ash surface area.

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.983

R Square 0.967

Adjusted R Square 0.959

Standard Uncertainty 590.562

Observations 16

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 3 122767087.9 40922363 117.335 3.711E-09

Residual 12 4185167.063 348763.9

Total 15 126952255

Coefficients Standard Uncertainty t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

At 17928.650 1491.257 12.023 4.736E-08 14679.481 21177.820

Bt -0.050 0.479 -0.104 0.919 -1.093 0.994

Ct 3.757 1.180 3.183 0.00787 1.186 6.328

Dt -179.219 17.367 -10.319 2.547E-07 -217.059 -141.380

Figure 27. Regression analysis for strength at 182 d according to equation (1).
23

Table 5. Linear regression coefficients vs. age for compressive strength data for primary 

independent variables.

Linear regression coefficients vs. age

Age (d) Intercept (psi) Cement fineness FA content FA fineness

Coefficient of 

determination 

(R2)

1 5900 4.71 -138.8 --- 0.952

3 8940 4.04 -163.6 --- 0.971

7 11580 3.64 -188.8 --- 0.981

28 15050 1.74 -203.3 3.05 0.981

91 18940 --- -187.0 4.95 0.986

182 18010 -0.99 -162.8 4.00 0.971

Table 6. Linear regression coefficients vs. age for compressive strength data according to 

equation (1).

Linear regression coefficients vs. age

Age (d) Intercept - At

(psi) Bt Ct Dt

Coefficient of 

determination 

(R2)

1 1875 2.81 1.16 -59.1 0.982

3 5370 2.45 1.52 -96.1 0.992

7 8410 2.20 1.11 -127.4 0.993

28 13200 1.34 2.24 -172.2 0.983

91 16330 0.521 4.37 -188.8 0.983

182 17930 -0.050 3.76 -179.2 0.967

The following observations can be made based on the graphical and regression analyses

of the compressive strength data (based directly on the regression analyses in Table 5 but 

consistent with those in Table 6):

1) Fly ash proportion has a major influence on compressive strength values at all ages of testing. 

While the linear regression coefficients shown in Table 5 indicates a maximum magnitude of the 

coefficients at a testing age of 28 d, if these coefficients are normalized by the strength values of 

the control mortar at each age (as indicated by the values in Appendix B), the relative influence 

of fly ash proportion decreases with age. This indicates that at longer times, fly ash provides 

strength equivalence to cement, in agreement with general results from the literature.

2) Cement fineness has a significant influence on strength at early ages, was deemed

insignificant at a testing age of 91 d in Table 5, and once again produced a significant influence 

but of an opposite sign at 182 d in Table 5. Producing a finer cement accelerates hydration at 

early ages, contributing to strength enhancement. At an age of 91 d, however, all of the cements 

investigated in this study were sufficiently fine to have nearly achieved complete hydration and 

thus provide nominally equivalent contributions to strength. Finally, at an age of 182 d, the finer 

cements produced slightly lower strengths. One possible explanation for this might be the 
24

enhanced micro-reinforcement provided by any remaining unhydrated coarser cement particles 

relative to their finer counterparts.

3) Conversely, fly ash fineness, while insignificant at testing ages of 1 d, 3 d, and 7 d in Table 5, 

has a significant influence on later age strength at 28 d and beyond, with the regression 

coefficient varying between about 3 and 5 for the three later testing ages in Table 5. Within the 

range of sizes investigated in the present study, coarser fly ash particles will not react as readily 

as finer ones, so that later age strength is best enhanced by finer fly ash particles.

3.5 Compressive Strength vs. Heat Release Analysis

Because all of the mortars were prepared with constant volumetric proportions and,

therefore, a constant initial volume fraction of water-filled porosity, one could hypothesize the 

existence of a relationship between hydration as assessed by heat release and strength 

development [4], since strength development is due to the building of bridges between cement 

and fly ash particles. This assumes that the initial porosity is the controlling variable for strength 

development and that interparticle spacing and total particle surface area are secondary 

influences for the range of mixtures investigated in the present study. It further assumes that the 

heat release of the cement hydration and fly ash pozzolanic reactions contribute proportionally to 

reaction product formation and thus strength development. The results plotted in Figure 28 do 

indeed indicate a fairly linear relationship between these two variables with some scatter, with an 

R2=0.9 (Figure 29). This relationship spans one order of magnitude in compressive strength 

values (from 1210 psi to over 12,400 psi), with the predictions exhibiting a standard uncertainty

of less than 1000 psi (Figure 29). The results also indicate that for this particular mortar mixture 

design, a heat release of about 50 J/cm3 would be required to initiate significant strength 

development (e.g., after final setting).

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 50 100 150 200 250

Compressive strength (psi)

Heat release (J/cm3 mortar)

Cement only 2- 50 % FA

3- 35 % FA 4- 50 % FA

5- 35 % FA 6- 50 % FA

7-65 % FA 8- 35 % FA

9- 20 % FA 10 - 35 % FA

Fit 11- 65 % FA

12- 50 % FA 13- 20 % FA

14- 20 % FA 15- 65 % FA

16- 50 % FA 17- 20 % FA

18- 65 % FA

Figure 28. Plot of mean mortar cube compressive strengths vs. heat release for ages of 1 d, 

3 d, and 7 d, indicating a generally linear relationship.
25

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.949

R Square 0.901

Adjusted R Square 0.900

Standard Uncertainty 970.167

Observations 55

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 1 456167347.519 4.562E+08 484.653 2.480E-28

Residual 53 49884857.265 941223.722

Total 54 506052204.785

Coefficients Standard Uncertainty t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept -4143.576 461.178 -8.985 3.09665E-12 -5068.581 -3218.571

X Variable 1 74.888 3.402 22.015 2.47985E-28 68.065 81.711

Figure 29. Regression analysis for fit of 1 d, 3 d, and 7 d compressive strength vs. 

cumulative heat release measured at the same ages.

3.6 Autogenous Deformation

An indication of typical measurement variability for the autogenous deformation of the 

corrugated tubes filled with mortar (ASTM C1698 [9]) is provided in Figure 30, which shows the 

individual and average values for three specimens of mortar mixture #17. The standard 

deviation among the three values is in the range of 30 microstrain, in agreement with the 

precision quoted in the ASTM C1698 test method [9]. Subsequently, each mortar mixture was 

characterized by the average net autogenous shrinkage measured at 28 d, calculated as the 

difference between the maximum observed expansion (if any) and the deformation (shrinkage) 

measured at 28 d, based on the suggested protocol of Cusson [17]. These 28-d net shrinkage

values are included in Appendix C, and were used to create DEX mean plots and to perform 

regression analysis, similar to the analyses conducted for compressive strength at each age. The

DEX mean plots and the regression results are provided in Figures 31 and 32, respectively. In 

Figure 31, the fly ash volumetric proportion has a major influence on autogenous deformation, 

the cement fineness has a significant effect, and the fly ash fineness has a much smaller 

influence; this qualitative analysis is confirmed by the quantitative regression coefficients and 

t-statistics provided in Figure 32. The computed square of the correlation coefficient (R2

=0.87) 

is lower for fitting the 28-d net autogenous shrinkage results than it was for any of the six fits of 

the measured compressive strength data (each R2

>0.95), as autogenous deformation is also 

dependent on interparticle pore sizes in addition to reactive surface areas [4,14].
26

-500

-450

-400

-350

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56

Autogenous deformation 

(microstrain)

Time (d)

Specimen 1

Specimen 2

Specimen 3

Average

Figure 30. Autogenous deformation measured during the course of 56 d for mortar mixture 

#17, providing an indication of typical measurement variability.

Figure 31. Mean net autogenous shrinkage (deformation) at 28 d vs. the three factors of 

cement PSD, fly ash PSD, and fly ash/cement ratio.
27

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.932

R Square 0.868

Adjusted R Square 0.835

Standard Uncertainty 56.803

Observations 16

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 3 255227.540 85075.847 26.368 1.443E-05

Residual 12 38718.468 3226.539

Total 15 293946.009

Coefficients Standard Uncertainty t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept 191.969 93.595 2.051 6.276E-02 -11.958 395.896

Cement surface area 0.293 0.088 3.322 6.087E-03 0.101 0.485

Fly ash volume fraction -6.828 0.847 -8.064 3.465E-06 -8.673 -4.983

Fly ash surface area 0.208 0.119 1.743 1.068E-01 -0.052 0.468

Figure 32. Regression analysis for net autogenous shrinkage at 28 d vs. cement surface 

area, fly ash volume fraction in percent, and fly ash surface area.

3.7 Autogenous Deformation vs. Strength Analysis

While strength is determined by the building and reinforcement of “bridges” between the 

original cement and fly ash particles, autogenous deformation depends both on the size of pores 

being (partially) emptied due to self-desiccation (as this pore size determines the magnitude of 

the autogenous stresses) and on the elastic modulus and creep coefficient of the material, as these 

latter two will determine the mortar’s deformation response to this stress level [14]. In general, 

finer cements will produce increased strengths at early ages due to their increased surface area 

producing higher hydration rates and will also increase autogenous deformation due to the 

smaller interparticle spacing (along with the increased hydration rate concurrently increasing 

chemical shrinkage and the self-desiccation that chemical shrinkage produces). The relationship

between net autogenous shrinkage and compressive strength is further explored in Figure 33 that 

plots the 28-d net autogenous shrinkage vs. the 28-d mortar cube compressive strength for the

first 19 of the mortar mixtures. A monotonic (fairly linear) relationship is observed, with 

significant scatter. The three highest strength mixtures (with 20 % fly ash and the finest three 

cements) are also those that exhibit net autogenous shrinkages greater than 400 microstrain, and 

could therefore be more susceptible to early-age cracking.
28

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 5000 10000 15000

28-d net autogenous shrinkage 

(microstrain)

28-d compressive strength (psi)

Figure 33. 28-d net autogenous shrinkage vs. 28-d compressive strength.
29

4 Conclusions

The present study has indicated that cement fineness, fly ash fineness, and fly ash volume 

fraction all have significant influences on strength development and other early-age properties of 

blended cement mortars. Strengths at each of the six ages were well fit as linear functions of the 

three independent variables of cement surface area, fly ash surface area, and fly ash volume 

fraction, with correlation coefficients, R, always greater than 0.97. For the range of variables 

investigated in this study, cement surface area has a significant influence on strength 

development for ages out to 28 d and again at 182 d, while fly ash surface area becomes 

significant from 28 days onward. Fly ash volume fraction has a very large influence on 

compressive strength at all tested ages, but its relative influence decreases with age,

exemplifying the enhanced later age reactivity of fly ash in these blended cement mortars. A 

model based on the absolute surface areas of cement and fly ash in each mortar, along with the 

fly ash volume percentage, yielded correlation coefficients that were generally superior to those 

obtained by directly using the three independent variables, particularly at early ages. 

Furthermore, linear relations between cumulative heat release and compressive strengths for ages 

of 1 d, 3 d, and 7 d and between autogenous deformation and compressive strength for an age 

of 28 d have been demonstrated.

With respect to the project objective of formulating high volume fly ash mixtures 

with 1 d and 28 d strengths equivalent to those of a control mortar with no fly ash prepared with 

the same volumetric proportions of sand, water, and binder (cement + fly ash), the results 

indicate that this goal is easily met for a fly ash volume fraction of 20 % and can be met for a fly 

ash volume fraction of 35 % with a judicious selection of the fly ash. In this study, a Class C fly 

ash was utilized to achieve this performance at the 35 % level. Based on the compressive 

strength testing, it was demonstrated that the finer cements produced for this study are superior 

to the current practice of employing Type III cement in HVFA mixtures. In conclusion, the 

approach of combining a finer cement with a coarser fly ash to produce a superior blended 

product has merit, as demonstrated by the quantitative results obtained in this study.
30

5 Acknowledgements

Funding for this study was provided by Roman Cement LLC, under CRADA CN-09-

5142, “Optimization of Particle Sizes in High Volume Fly Ash Blended Cements.” The authors 

would like to thank Mr. John Winpigler and Mr. Max Peltz of the Engineering Laboratory at 

NIST for their assistance in carrying out the experiments described in this report.
31

6 References

1) Bentz, D.P., Garboczi, E.J., Haecker, C.J., and Jensen, O.M., “Effects of Cement Particle Size 

Distribution on Performance Properties of Portland Cement-Based Materials,” Cement and 

Concrete Research, 29 (10), 1663-1671, 1999.

2) Bentz, D.P., Jensen, O.M., Hansen, K.K., Olesen, J.F., Stang, H., and Haecker, C.J., 

“Influence of Cement Particle Size Distribution on Early Age Autogenous Strains and Stresses in 

Cement-Based Materials,” Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 84 (1), 129-135, 2001.

3) Bentz, D.P., Sant, G., and Weiss, W.J., “Early-Age Properties of Cement-Based Materials: I. 

Influence of Cement Fineness,” ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 20 (7), 502-

508, 2008.

4) Bentz, D.P., “Blending Different Fineness Cements to Engineer the Properties of CementBased Materials,” Magazine of Concrete Research, 62 (5), 327-338, 2010.

5) Bentz, D.P., Bognacki, C.J., Riding, K.A., and Villareal, V.H., “Hotter Cements, Cooler 

Concretes,” Concrete International, 33 (1), 41-48, 2011.

6) Guynn, J.M., and Hansen, A.S., “High Early Strength Pozzolan Cement Blends,” U.S. Patent 

Application 12/576,117, Filing Date 10/08/2009.

7) Bentz, D.P., Ferraris, C.F., De la Varga, I., Peltz, M.A., and Winpigler, J., “Mixture 

Proportioning Options for Improving High Volume Fly Ash Concretes,” International Journal of 

Pavement Research and Technology, 3 (5), 234-240, 2010.

8) ASTM International, ASTM Standards on DISC, Vol. 04.01, West Conshohocken, PA, 2009.

9) ASTM International, ASTM Standards on DISC, Vol. 04.02, West Conshohocken, PA, 2009.

10) Ryan, T.P., Modern Experimental Design, Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2007.

11) Bentz, D.P., and Turpin, R., “Potential Applications of Phase Change Materials in Concrete 

Technology,” Cement and Concrete Composites, 29 (7), 527-532, 2007.

12) Bentz, D.P., and Ferraris, C.F., “Rheology and Setting of High Volume Fly Ash Mixtures,”

Cement and Concrete Composites, 32 (4), 265-270, 2010.

13) Bentz, D.P., Peltz, M.A., and Winpigler, J., “Early-Age Properties of Cement-Based 

Materials: II. Influence of Water-to-Cement Ratio,” ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil 

Engineering, 21 (9), 512-517, 2009.

14) Bentz, D.P., and Jensen, O.M., “Mitigation Strategies for Autogenous Shrinkage Cracking,” 

Cement and Concrete Composites, 26 (6), 677-685, 2004.

15) Cusson, D., “Effect of Blended Cements on Efficiency of Internal Curing of HPC,” in ACISP 256, Internal Curing of High-Performance Concretes: Laboratory and Field Experiences, 

American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 105-120, 2008.

16) Ferraris, C.F., “Concrete Rheology: Knowledge and Challenges,” 2nd International RILEM 

Symposium on Advances in Concrete through Science and Engineering, Quebec Canada, 2006.
32

17) Hackley, V.A, and Ferraris, C.F., “The Use of Nomenclature in Dispersion Science and 

Technology,” NIST Recommended Practice Guide, SP 960-3, 2001.

18) Schramm, G., “A Practical Approach to Rheology and Rheometry,” Haake, 1994.

19) Ferraris, C.F., Geiker, M., Martys, N.S., and Muzzatti, N., “Parallel-plate Rheometer 

Calibration Using Oil and Lattice Boltzmann Simulation,” Journal of Advanced Concrete 

Technology, 5 (3), 363-371, 2007.
33

Appendix A – Procedures for Determining HRWRA Dosages

Rheological measurements usually are represented as a plot of shear stress, σ, vs. shear 

rate, γ [16]. The apparent viscosity [17] is defined as the ratio of the shear stress over the shear 

rate at a given shear rate. For a Newtonian fluid (no yield stress), it is also equal to the slope of 

the fitted line of the shear stress-shear rate plot, going through zero, as the relationship is linear. 

However, most granular materials are non-Newtonian. Their main characteristic is that they 

exhibit a yield stress, σB, which is regarded as the stress needed to initiate deformation or flow of 

the material. There are several methods to measure the yield stress. The most common method is 

the extrapolation from the Bingham test method as described in equation 2. The plastic viscosity, 

ηpl, and the yield stress, are estimated from the regression. This procedure assumes that the 

plastic viscosity is defined as the slope of the shear stress – shear rate curve and that the yield 

stress is the intercept of the curve at a zero shear rate. This point is generally not measured so 

this constitutes an extrapolation (Figure 34). The Bingham rheological parameters (yield stress 

and plastic viscosity) characterize the flow curve within a limited range of shear rates when it is 

not linear over a wider range of shear rates. 

σ σ η γ = B + pl (2)

Figure 34: Bingham model and calculation of the plastic viscosity and yield stress.

The configuration of the rotational rheometer [18] used was a parallel plate with a 

diameter of 35 mm, a serrated surface and with the gap varying from 0.4 mm upwards. 

Cement paste rheological parameters are strongly affected by the amount of HRWRA 

added to the mixture. Usually, the yield stress and plastic viscosity decrease with an increase in 

the amount of HRWRA, until a maximum dosage is reached where the addition of HRWRA 

admixture does not change the rheological properties, a so-called saturation point. The 

rheological properties also change with time as the cement paste reacts and approaches initial set. 

The goal of these measurements was to estimate the optimum dosage of HRWRA for a given 

ηpl

σB

Shear rate

*

* *

* *

*

Shear stress

ηpl

σB

Shear rate

*

* *

* *

*

Shear stress
34

mixture as shown in Table 1. To determine this dosage while minimizing the amount of 

materials and time required, the following process was developed:

1) Prepare the mixture using a high-shear blender with temperature control. The temperature 

of the water bath is set at 15 °C, to obtain a paste at 21 °C. As soon as the mixing is completed,

the temperature control is turned off and the material is kept covered.

2) Measure the rheological properties in the parallel plate rheometer using the following 

sequence [19] after placing the material between the plates: 1) 30 s of no shear to equilibrate 

with the temperature of 23 °C; 2) 160 s of shear at 70 s-1 to homogenize the material; 3) increase 

the shear rate in steps from 1 s-1 to 50 s-1 and then decrease it to 1 s-1. The induced shear stresses 

are measured, corresponding to 10 shear rates when increasing the rotational velocity, and 10 

additional levels when decreasing the rotational velocity. Each measured point is recorded after 

the shear stress reached equilibrium or after 20 s, whichever occurs first. The descending data are 

regressed to a line using ordinary least squares (Figure 34), and the plastic viscosity and yield 

stress are estimated based on the Bingham equation (Eq. (2)).

3) If the plastic viscosity is high enough (above 0.30 Pa·s) or the yield stress is above 50 Pa, a 

dosage of HRWRA is added to the mixture and it is remixed for 30 s at 1050 rad/s [10,000 rpm]. 

The dosage is selected depending on the magnitude of the yield stress or plastic viscosity, in 

other words how far from the desired values the original measurements are.

4) After the addition of the HRWRA and remixing, points 2 and 3 are repeated until the

desired rheological properties are obtained. If set occurs during this process, a new mixture is 

prepared and dosages are adjusted accordingly. Initial setting is easily detected by a significant

increase of the rheological parameters and the development of a non-linear shear stress- shear 

rate curve. 

The results obtained are shown in Table 7. For two of the mixtures, the dosage could only 

be estimated due to the fact that at all the examined dosages of HRWRA, the shear stress-shear 

rate curve was not linear and therefore, the yield stress and plastic viscosity could not be 

correctly estimated. These mixtures are marked Not linear in Table 7. 
35

Table 7: Results of rheological tests

Mixture HRWRA

[g/300g of 

cement]

Yield 

stress

[Pa]

Plastic 

Viscosity

[Pa.s]

Coefficient of 

determination 

(R2

)

Comments

1 0 2.8 0.21 0.99

2 0 1.0 0.05 0.94

3 0 22.9 0.27 0.95

4 0 6.8 0.14 0.97

5 0 335.7 2.27 0.89

1.10 9.6 0.44 0.99

6 0 107.5 0.62 0.95

0.85 29.7 0.13 0.99

7 0 30.1 0.15 0.96

8 0 287.9 1.41 0.99

1.45 59.2 0.08 0.72

9 3.05 15.9 0.20 0.86 Not linear

10 0 131.9 0.65 0.98

2 48 0.09 0.83 Not linear

11 0 5.6 0.10 1.00

12 0 66.5 0.32 0.96

0.15 48.6 0.22 1.00

13 0 37.5 0.31 0.99

0.15 12.9 0.27 0.99

14 0 402.9 1.53 0.85

2.40 4.58 0.12 0.97

15 0 2.88 0.09 0.97

16 0 65.61 0.58 1.00

0.15 28.07 0.24 0.98

17 0 534.23 2.60 0.94

3.05 23.27 0.12 0.74

18 0 22.18 0.09 0.99
36

Appendix B – Measured Compressive Strength Values for all 

Mixtures

Table 8. Measured mortar cube compressive strengths (means and standard deviations) for 

the 20 mortar mixtures at each of six different ages.

Mixture

Run 

Order 

ID

1-d mean 

strength 

(psi)

(Std. dev.)

3-d mean 

strength 

(psi)

(Std. dev.)

7-d mean 

strength 

(psi)

(Std. dev.)

28-d mean 

strength 

(psi)

(Std. dev.)

91-d mean 

strength 

(psi)

(Std. dev.)

182-d mean 

strength 

(psi)

(Std. dev.)

ControlA 1 5320 (72) 7900 (340) 9220 (330) 11640 (430) 12280 (610) 12470 (600)

Control repeat 1A 5260 (180) 7990 (260) 9090 (580) 11510 (430) 12750 (510) 13430 (490)

50 % fly ash 2 1980 (51) 3090 (73) 4250 (240) 7120 (160) 10240 (240) 11520 (510)

35 % FA 3–Cem 7 3 3980 (150) 5780 (130) 7380 (220) 10100 (290) 11480 (230) 13170 (570)

35 % FA 2-Cem 8 5 5500 (210) 6960 (140) 8600 (250) 9510 (460) 11180 (310) 11860 (710)

35 % FA 5-Cem 9 8 5660 (210) 7380 (42) 8460 (220) 10150 (170) 12030 (280) 12890 (580)

35 % FA 4-Cem 10 10 6460 (190) 7750 (370) 9400 (280) 10500 (200) 11690 (580) 12080 (300)

35 % C ash -Cem 9 19 5620 (190) 7460 (140) 8910 (280) 11540 (560) 12450 (90) 13180 (1050)

35 % FA 5-Type III 20 4610 (90) 6620 (410) 7200 (250) 9620 (500) 11260 (340) Not measured

50 % FA 2-Cem 7 4 2300 (130) 3600 (140) 4780 (170) 6790 (43) 8520 (38) 9620 (220)

50 % FA 5-Cem 8 16 3240 (100) 4660 (74) 5810 (140) 7480 (240) 9410 (460) 10390 (600)

50 % FA 4-Cem 9 6 3300 (31) 4620 (85) 5550 (170) 6820 (220) 8160 (190) 9450 (200)

50 % FA 3-Cem 10 12 3650 (52) 4880 (200) 5910 (100) 7170 (260) 8360 (220) 9190 (430)

65 % FA 5-Cem 7 15 1210 (39) 2110 (44) 2660 (57) 4430 (200) 6910 (44) 8270 (370)

65 % FA 4-Cem 8 11 1480 (35) 2130 (73) 2720 (84) 3960 (70) 5530 (140) 7160 (370)

65 % FA 3-Cem 9 18 1480 (45) 2150 (48) 2770 (62) 3730 (69) 5180 (130) 6710 (250)

65 % FA 2-Cem 10 7 1700 (73) 2310 (42) 2780 (44) 3770 (21) 4790 (230) 6060 (80)

20 % FA 4-Cem 7 13 5320 (91) 7360 (220) 9220 (460) 11330 (360) 13020 (270) 13310 (780)

20 % FA 3-Cem 8 14 7770 (84) 9940 (460) 11620 (300) 13010 (830) 13620 (640) 14440 (820)

20 % FA 2-Cem 9 17 7910 (330) 9680 (370) 11370 (430) 13470 (590) 13680 (600) 13960 (760)

20 % FA 5-Cem 10 9 9590 (250) 11070 (210) 12460 (270) 14740 (570) 15510 (890) 15250 (370)

AOrder of mixtures in the table is the same as that used in the compressive strength plots in 

Figures 7, 8, and 9.
37

Appendix C – Measured 28-d Net Autogenous Shrinkages for all 

Mixtures

Table 9. Measured 28-d net autogenous shrinkages for the 20 mortar mixtures.

Mixture

Run 

Order 

ID

28-d net autogenous 

shrinkage

(microstrain)

Control 1 247

Control repeat 1A 175

50 % fly ash 2 74

35 % FA 3–Cem 7 3 125

35 % FA 2-Cem 8 5 187

35 % FA 5-Cem 9 8 269

35 % FA 4-Cem 10 10 258

35 % C ash -Cem 9 19 348

35 % FA 5-Type III 20 Not measured

50 % FA 2-Cem 7 4 85

50 % FA 5-Cem 8 16 175

50 % FA 4-Cem 9 6 125

50 % FA 3-Cem 10 12 190

65 % FA 5-Cem 7 15 59

65 % FA 4-Cem 8 11 48

65 % FA 3-Cem 9 18 174

65 % FA 2-Cem 10 7 73

20 % FA 4-Cem 7 13 279

20 % FA 3-Cem 8 14 415

20 % FA 2-Cem 9 17 415

20 % FA 5-Cem 10 9 524