Interground Limestone Cement:

Construction and 2-yr Performance of a Concrete Test

Section

Prepared by:
Nancy M. Whiting
Mn/DOT Office of Materials
Concrete Research Unit

This report represents the results of research conducted by the authors and does not necessarily represent the views
or policies of the Minnesota Department of Transportation and/or the Center for Transportation Studies. This report
does not contain a standard or specified technique.
[If report mentions any products by name include this second paragraph to the disclaimer. If no products mentioned,
this can be deleted.]
The authors and the Minnesota Department of Transportation and/or Center for Transportation Studies do not
endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers names appear herein solely because they are considered
essential to this report

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

2.

3. Recipients Accession No.

4. Title and Subtitle

5. Report Date

Interground Limestone Cement: Construction and 2-yr

Performance of a Concrete Test Section

6.

7. Author(s)

8. Performing Organization Report No.

Nancy M Whiting
9. Performing Organization Name and Address

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

Mn/DOT Office of Materials

1400 Gervais Ave
Maplewood, MN 55109

11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Minnesota Department of Transportation

395 John Ireland Boulevard Mail Stop 330
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155

Construction and performance report of

interground limestone cement concrete from
Oct. 2004 to Jan. 2007.
14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)

ABSTRACT: Several countries around the world have used interground limestone cement (ILC) for
several years in concrete construction. The results from various research projects do not all agree on the
influence interground limestone has on the plastic and hardened properties of concrete, but most agree
that the variability can be controlled if the limestone content remains at or below 5%. To better
understand the performance of ILC, a test section of concrete flatwork was poured in a median in Baxter,
Minnesota in October 2004. This test section was constructed with concrete made with and without
interground limestone in the cement. The physical and chemical properties of both cements were very
similar. Tests of the fresh and hardened properties of both concretes placed in the field suggest very
similar properties with slightly higher strengths for the interground limestone cement. The reason for the
increased strength of the interground limestone is uncertain but may have been related to a reduced w/cm
ratio. The test section is performing well after more than 2 years. Based on this small test section it
appears that mechanical properties similar to normal concrete can be achieved using <5% interground
limestone in the cement.
17. Document Analysis/Descriptors

18. Availability Statement

Interground limestone, cement,

concrete, strength, w/cm, mortar,
test section
19. Security Class (this report)

20. Security Class (this page)

Unclassified

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

22. Price

Acknowledgements
This project is the results of tremendous work and cooperation between Holcim (US) Inc. and the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT). In particular the author wishes to thank the efforts
of Alfred Gardiner, Technical Service Engineer of the Northern Sales Group of Holcim (US) Inc; Doug
Schwartz, Concrete Engineer, Mn/DOT; Bernard Izevbekhai, Concrete Research Engineer, Mn/DOT;
Kevin Kosobud, District 3 Construction Engineer, Mn/DOT; and several support engineers and
technicians at Mn/DOTs Office of Materials lab and District 3 Office. Their extra efforts and cooperation
were key in completing this project successfully.

ii

Table of Contents
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................v
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... vi
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................1
Background ...............................................................................................................................1
Previous Research .....................................................................................................................1
Research Problem and Goals ....................................................................................................2
Research Approach ....................................................................................................................2
Chapter 2: Test Section Construction Report ..................................................................................3
Mix Design.................................................................................................................................3
Field Placement..........................................................................................................................3
Specimen Fabrication.................................................................................................................4
Chapter 3: Tests Results and Analyses ............................................................................................6
Physical Cement Tests ...............................................................................................................6
Chemical Cement Tests .............................................................................................................7
Hardened Concrete Tests ...........................................................................................................8
Comparing Mortar and Concrete ...............................................................................................9
Chapter 4: Two-year Performance Review....................................................................................10
Chapter 5: Summary and Conclusion ............................................................................................13
Summary ..................................................................................................................................13
Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................13
References......................................................................................................................................15
Appendix A: Concrete Mix Design ............................................................................................ A-1
Appendix B: Cement Properties ..................................................................................................B-1
Appendix C: ASTM C666 Freeze/Thaw Test Result ..................................................................C-1
Appendix D: Testing Summary Provided by Holcim................................................................. D-1

iii

List of Tables and Figures

List of Tables
Table 2.1 Mix Design ................................................................................................................3
Table 2.2 Field Test Results.......................................................................................................4
Table 3.1 Physical Cement and Mortar Properties ....................................................................6
Table 3.2 Mix Design for 2-in Mortar Cubes ............................................................................7
Table 3.3 Chemical Analyses of Cement...................................................................................7
Table 3.4 Hardened Concrete Test Results................................................................................8
Table 4.1 Daily Temperatures..................................................................................................12
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Median Test Section .................................................................................................4
Figure 4.1 Concrete Test Section 2-Years Later......................................................................10
Figure 4.2 Joints.......................................................................................................................11
Figure 4.3 Crack.......................................................................................................................11
Figure 4.4 Pockmarks ..............................................................................................................11

iv

ABSTRACT
Several countries around the world have used interground limestone cement (ILC) for several years in
concrete construction. The results from various research projects do not all agree on the influence
interground limestone has on the plastic and hardened properties of concrete, but most agree that the
variability can be controlled if the limestone content remains at or below 5%. To better understand the
performance of ILC, a test section of concrete flatwork was poured in a median in Baxter, Minnesota in
October 2004. This test section was constructed with concrete made with and without interground
limestone in the cement. The physical and chemical properties of both cements were very similar. Tests
of the fresh and hardened properties of both concretes placed in the field suggest very similar properties
with slightly higher strengths for the interground limestone cement. The reason for the increased strength
of the interground limestone is uncertain but may have been related to a reduced w/cm ratio. The test
section is performing well after more than 2 years. Based on this small test section it appears that
mechanical properties similar to normal concrete can be achieved using <5% interground limestone in the
cement.

Executive Summary
Grinding raw, natural forming limestone with the clinker during the cement production results in a product
called interground limestone cement. The Canadian Standards have allowed up to 5% limestone in
ordinary Portland cement (OPC) since the early 1980s and several countries around the world allow 1% 5% in their OPC (1). In 2004 ASTM changed C150 Standard Specification for Portland Cement to allow
interground limestone in OPC.
Results from published research disagreed as to the influence of interground limestone on the plastic and
hardened properties of concrete made with and without interground limestone in the cement. Some
research showed that a small addition of limestone to the cement enhances hydration by providing
nucleation sites for the hydration process (2), while other research claimed the limestone participates very
little if at all in the hydration process and may lead to slower set times and lower strengths (3). Some
literature indicated that, most of the chemical and physical properties of cement varies more between
plants than between interground limestone cement (at <5% replacement) and cement without interground
limestone from the same plant.
Because of conflicting results in the published research the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(Mn/DOT) was concerned about using cement with interground limestone for concrete construction. To
address these concerns, laboratory tests were conducted and a small concrete test section was placed as a
median using two cements; one standard cement without any limestone interground in the cement and the
same cement except with 4.3% limestone interground in cement.
The chemical and physical properties of the two cements tested in the lab were very similar. The set time,
fineness test and compressive strength test results of the two cements fell within the standard deviation
considered acceptable by ASTM for testing the same material. These similarities suggest that the
differences between the two cements are not significant.
The workability for both the laboratory mortars (measured as flow) and the field-placed concrete
(measured as slump) were similar for the mixes made with these two cements. In contrast, although the of
strength gains measured for the two mortars were similar, the strength gains for the two concretes were
not. The concrete made with interground limestone cement had higher strength than for the concrete made
with the cement without limestone. The mortar samples were fabricated and tested in controlled
laboratory conditions. The concrete was fabricated in a batch plant and slump was tested in the field.
There is some evidence that suggests that the interground limestone cement concrete was fabricated with a
lower w/cm. A lower w/cm would explain the higher strengths of the interground limestone cement
concrete.
The field placement of both concretes with and without interground limestone in the cement went
smoothly without any unusual problems with either mix. Test specimens were made in the field from
each concrete and laboratory-conducted tests suggested adequate strengths and good freeze/thaw
durability of both concretes. The appearance and performance of the test section after more than two
winters is excellent and there are no indications of early distress or other problems.

vi

These cement tests indicate that the addition of <4.3% limestone, interground with the cement, resulted in
cement that had similar properties to cement without interground limestone. Also, the concrete tests, field
placements and the two-year performance of the test section suggest that the concrete made from cement
that contained 4.3% interground limestone had similar plastic and hardened properties to the concrete
made with OPC without interground limestone, with little to no adjustments to the mix design. The longterm durability of the concrete is yet to be determined in the field, however laboratory tests and the 2-year
performance suggest that the potential for long-term durability is good.
Future paving using cement that contains less than 5% interground limestone cement may not be a
problem, as long as the cement continues to meet the ASTM C150 standards and Mn/DOTs requirements.

vii

Chapter 1
Introduction
Background
Interground limestone cement is made by grinding raw, natural forming limestone with the
clinker during the cement production. In recent years there has been concern and much
discussion about accepting < 5% interground limestone cement as ordinary Portland cement
(OPC) in paving and other transportation structures. The Canadian Standards have allowed up to
5% limestone in OPC since the early 1980s and several countries around the world allow 1% 5% in their OPC (1).
In 2004 ASTM changed C150 Standard Specification for Portland Cement to allow interground
limestone in OPC. According to ASTM C150-04 (section 5.1.3) Up to 5.0% limestone by mass
is permitted in amounts such that the chemical and physical requirements of this standard are
met. Pure limestone is CaCO3, the same material that is often used in the production of cement
clinker. However natural limestone often contains impurities of sand, silt, clay, iron and other
rock and mineral components. C150-04 requires that the limestone used as an addition contain
at least 70% some form of CaCO3. This allows up to 30% of the limestone to be sand, silt,
clay or other natural components, which in turn allows up to 1.5% of these impurities in the
cement (ie: 30% of the 5% is 1.5% of the total cement).
Previous Research
According to Neville (2), some research showed that a small addition of limestone to the cement
enhances hydration by providing nucleation sites for the hydration process. Detwiler and Tennis
(3) and Hawkins, et al (1) referenced other research that claim the limestone participates very
little if at all in the hydration process and may lead to slower set times and lower strengths.
The Portland Cement Association (PCA) Sate-of-the Art Review summarized the work of several
researchers some of which had conflicting results (1). Some of the research claimed adding
limestone to the cement has the following effects on the mix:
o decreased the water demand
o increased workability
o slight increase in plastic viscosity
o more easily consolidated by vibration
o accelerated hydration rates
o reduced strength
o slight increased shrinkage
While other research documented the opposite effects. Details from some of this research
suggested that added limestone reduced the pore volume and connectivity of pores thereby
reducing the permeability (1). A slight reduction in oxygen permeability was measured but no
change in porosity or absorptivity was measured. Other work presented in this same publication
looked at the water absorption of concrete made with cements with and without limestone, and
results indicated a greater difference between cements from different plants than between
cements with and without limestone from the same plant. Some problems with scaling and
freeze/thaw durability were documented for some concretes made from cements that contained
1

15% or more limestone. However, the durability related to the amount and type of clay in the
limestone and not the percent limestone added (1). Similarly, the sulfate resistance of limestone
cement concrete varied and related more to the varying C3A content than the limestone content
(4).
The growth of secondary minerals in the cement paste can cause distress and lead to early
deterioration. Thaumasite is one such mineral, similar to and often associated with the formation
of secondary ettringite. Thaumasite needs a ready supply of sulfates and carbonates (CO3) to
form, such as concrete that contains CaCO3 dust and is exposed to sulfate rich waters (5).
However, work reported by Hooton and Thomas (6) suggested that 5% limestone addition is not
sufficiently high, but 15%-35% limestone may trigger a problem with thaumasite formation.
Amidst these conflicting reports the Portland Cement Association (PCA) has taken the stand that
the influence of interground limestone in the cement is dependant on the final particle size
distribution, and the chemistry of the clinker and limestone. These physical and chemical
properties can be optimized with the use of < 5% interground limestone to produce a
comparable, if not slightly enhanced OPC. The current limits for loss on ignition (LOI) and
insoluble residue in ASTM C150-04 provides additional quality control (1).
Research Problem and Goals
By 2004 interground limestone cements were becoming more available in Minnesota. Because of
the increasing availability and the conflicting reports on the influence of interground limestone in
cement, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) became concerned about the
quality of the final concrete product that would be provided for future paving. After several
meetings with the cement industry Mn/DOT and Holcim ventured into this joint project that
investigated how interground limestone affected:
o workability and placement of the fresh concrete,
o strength development
o long-term durability related to scaling, freeze/thaw durability and paste deterioration
from the growth of thaumasite.
Research Approach
A small concrete test section was placed as a median adjacent to a major highway to help
investigate concerns and make recommendations for Mn/DOTs future use of interground
limestone cement. The two parts to this test section included concrete made with OPC without
limestone, and concrete made with interground limestone cement. Other than the cement, the
two concretes were proposed to be exactly the same, following the same mix design.
A series of tests were established to measure any possible differences between the cement with
and the cement without interground limestone, and the concrete made with each. Cement
samples were sent to Mn/DOTs Materials Office to characterize the physical and chemical
properties of the cements. The slump and percent air of both concretes were measured in the
field during placement of the test section. At the time of placement cylinders, beams and prisms
were fabricated in the field and tested for strength and freeze/thaw durability. The field site was
visited more than two years after placement to evaluate its early field performance.

Chapter 2
Test Section Construction Report
The test section for this project, SP1810-87, consisted of the two concrete mixes placed as the
flatwork for the median of Edgewood Drive just west of the intersection with TH 371,
approximately 1.9 miles north of the intersection of TH 371 and TH 210, Baxter, MN. Both
concretes were batched from Holcim St. Lawrence Cement, from the Mississauga Plant; one
batch contained cement with interground limestone (4.3% by mass) and the other batch
contained cement from the same source, same clinker, but without interground limestone.
Bauerly Company in Baxter, MN, for Holcim (US) Inc., tested both concrete batches in
conjunction with the concrete placement for the city of Baxter.
Mix Design
The mix design proposed for the flatwork was a typical Mn/DOT 3A32 Mix and is detailed in
Table 1. A copy of the approved mix design is shown in Appendix A. Both the fine and the
coarse aggregate for this project came from Roberts gravel pit, source #11001, Gull Lake. The
fly ash was a Class C fly ash from North Shore Mining power plant. Copies of the Mill
Certificate for the cement with limestone and the oxide analyses of both cements are discussed in
Chapter 3 and available in Appendix B.
Table 2.1 Mix Design
Mix No.

Slump (in.)

% Air

Total
Cementitious

Fly ash

w/cm

3A32

2 to 3

6.5

599 lbs

15%

0.48

Cement samples were sent to the Mn/DOTs Office of Materials lab and characterized using
ASTM, AASHTO and/or Mn/DOT standardized tests for: chemical analysis, loss on ignition, set
time (ASTM C191 Vicat and C266 Gilmore), air content (ASTM C185), fineness (ASTM C204
Blaine), autoclave expansion (ASTM C151) and compressive strength (ASTM C109 Mortar
cubes). Results are presented and discussed in Chapter 3.
Field Placement
The concrete for this test section was placed on October 21, 2004. Historical weather records
and anecdotal information suggests the weather that day was cool, cloudy and dry (high of 58F
and low of 39F). Two truckloads, each containing seven yards of concrete, were placed as the
flatwork of the median of Edgewood Drive. The first truckload was batched using cement that
contained interground limestone and placed as the western half of the median, then the concrete
without interground limestone was placed as the eastern half closest to TH 371 (as shown in
Figure 2.1). The words begin test and end test were etched into the soft concrete surface on
either end of the newly placed test section that contained interground limestone cement.

TH 371

a)

b)

w/o lmst

Figure 2.1. Median placed during test: a) looking east towards TH 371 and b)
west. The test section without interground limestone cement (w/o lmst) is in
foreground of b)
The target mix parameter was to produce both mixes with equal slump. The contractor tested the
fresh concrete from both trucks at the construction site for slump and air content. Results of field
tests are given in Table 2. The percentage air varied slightly between mixes and was slightly
higher than the mix design (6.5%) for both mixes. Both mixes were placed with equal slump
that was slightly higher than the target mix design (2-3 in). This slight deviation from the mix
design of slump and air is not considered significant for this project.
Table 2.2 Field Test Results
w/o Limestone

w/ Limestone

Slump (in)

3.75

3.75

Air (%)

7.8

6.8

Although only one mix design with a single w/cm ratio (0.48) was approved for use with both
cements, a letter from Mr. Gardiner, Holcim, Jan. 24, 2005, suggested that less water was used in
the mix that contained interground limestone cement to achieve the same slump (see Appendix
D).
Specimen Fabrication
The contractor also cast specimens at the field site from each job mix. These specimens were
cylinders and beams tested for compressive strength and flexural strength at 1, 7 and 28 days.
The test results are given in Chapter 3, Test Results and Analyses. (Specimen dimensions were
not documented.)
Six concrete prisms also were cast at the site the day of paving, three prisms from each mix, for
rapid freeze/thaw testing. The prisms arrived at American Engineering and Testing (AET)
laboratory, St. Paul, MN on October 27, 2004 at which time they were placed in a temperature
controlled 100% moist room until they were 28 days old. At 28 days, the prisms were removed
4

from the moist room and placed in a freezer until there was room in the freeze/thaw chamber in
December 2004. The freezing and thawing testing was conducted according to ASTM C666
Standard Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing, procedure A.
The test results are given in Chapter 3, Test Results and Analyses.

Chapter 3
Test Results and Analyses
Physical Cement Tests
Samples of both cements used in construction were submitted to the Mn/DOT Materials Office
for testing and analyses using standardized testing procedures. The results from the physical
tests are shown in table 3.1. The mill certificate (mill cert) values provided by Holcim, St
Lawrence Cement are included for comparison. Copies of the actual test reports and mill
certificate are provided in Appendix B.
Table 3.1 Physical Cement and Mortar Properties

Compressive Strength test

Mn/DOT Lab
w/o limestone
(psi)

Mn/DOT Lab
w/limestone
(psi)

Mill cert
w/limestone
(psi)

4140
5200
Vicat Gilmore
90
165
210
315
4026
9.1
0.01
1.58
0.18

4110
5070

2540
4450
5130

(ASTM C109M, 2-in mortar cubes)

1-day
3-day
7-day
Set Time (min)
Initial
Final
Fineness (Blaine cm2/g)
Air content
Autoclave Expansion
LOI
Insoluble Residue

Vicat
100
200

Gilmore
155
275
4073
9.6
0.02
1.85
0.33

94
231
4010
7.5
0.016*
2.43
0.64

*Reported as Sulfate expansion

The results from the physical tests conducted by the Mn/DOT lab of the two cements with and
without interground limestone, are all very similar and all fall within ASTM C150 Standard
Specifications for Portland Cement for all types of Portland cements (Types I, II, III, IV and V).
The Mn/DOT test results also compare reasonably well to the values reported in the mill
certificate.
The compressive strengths reported in table 3.1 are average values of testing three 2-in mortar
cubes from each mix, one mix with and one without limestone in the cement. The mix
proportions were exactly the same for both mortars, the same amount of cement, sand, water and
air entraining agent (as seen in table 3.2). The flowability also was the same for both mixes as
measured using a flow table (per requirements for ASTM 109M).
The standard mix without limestone in the cement had slightly higher compressive strength at
both 3 and 7 days, however the difference is not considered significant. By ASTM standards, the
strengths measured in all six cubes were within the standard deviation considered acceptable for
one mix (details presented in Appendix B). This suggests that having interground limestone in
the cement did not create any measurable difference in the 3- and 7-day strengths.
6

Table 3.2 Mix Design for 2-in Mortar Cubes

Mix
Cement (g)
Sand (g)
Water (ml)
w/cm
Flow
Air entrainer

w/o limestone
500
1375
242
0.484
105
230

w/ limestone
500
1375
242
0.484
105
230

The fineness of cement influences some of the plastic and hardened properties of the concrete.
An increase in fineness may increase the rate of hydration and strength development, and to a
small extent, the workability of a concrete mix (Neville, 1997). The Blaine is a measure of the
specific surface of the cement particles and gives an accepted measure of the relative fineness of
cements. The Blaine measured for the two cements used in this project, with and without
limestone, were very similar. The slight difference is within ASTM range of acceptability of two
tests performed on the same cement. Therefore, it is no surprise that the strength development
and workability (measured as flow) also were very similar for the mixes made from these two
cements.
Chemical Cement Tests
The oxide analyses of the two cements performed by Mn/DOTs lab are very similar, and vary
only slightly from the mill certificate, as shown in Table 3.3. All results are within AASHTO
M85/ASTM C150 Standard Specification for Portland Cement. (See Appendix B for discussion
on sulfate content).
Table 3.3 Chemical Analyses of Cement
(%)
SO3
MgO
CaO
SiO2
Fe2O3
Al2O3
NaO
KO
Available Alkali
C3A
C3S
C2S
C4AF

Mn/DOT Lab
w/o limestone
4.32*
3.04
62.69
19.53
2.31
4.66
0.45
1.06
1.15
8.44
59.85
10.84
7.03

Mn/DOT Lab
w/limestone
4.33*
3.02
62.40
19.38
2.38
4.81
0.41
1.05
1.10
8.72
58.68
11.30
7.24

Mill Certificate
w/limestone
4.17*
2.26
61.19
19.07
2.34
5.67

0.87**
11.06
42.02
22.99
7.13

* SO3 are higher than recommended for Type I but allowed since expansion remains below 0.02%
** Reported as total alkali

Hardened Concrete Tests

The hardened concrete test specimens were fabricated on site at the time of construction from the
same mix that was placed in the field. Specimen dimension were not recorded for these tests, but
standard ASTM/AASHTO test procedures were followed using recommended sample sizes. The
results of hardened concrete tests performed for the contractor are presented in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Hardened Concrete Test Results
Compressive Strength
w/o Limestone

w/ Limestone

1 Day (psi)

1130

1170

7 Day (psi)

3610

3910

28 Day (psi)

4470

5260

Flexural Strength
w/o Limestone

w/ Limestone

1 Day (psi)

265

305

7 Day (psi)

615

675

28 Day (psi)

780

980

ASTM C666 Freeze/Thaw Testing

(Individual prism measurements after 319 cycles)
w/o Limestone

w/ Limestone

% Weight Loss

0.57

0.50

0.44

0.38

0.39

% Length
Expansion

0.049

0.042 0.052

0.029

0.034 0.046

% RDM

89

94

91

95

94

0.52

92

The concrete made with the interground limestone cement achieved greater strengths than the
concrete made without limestone as shown in the compressive and flexural strengths tests at 1, 7
and 28 days. The contractor suggested that the interground limestone cement required less water
to achieve the same slump and this lower water demand enabled the interground limestone
cement to achieve greater compressive and flexural strength while maintaining workability (per
l/24/05 letter from Mr. Gardiner, Holcim (US), Inc. as shown in Appendix D). This information
suggests that the mix made with interground limestone cement was placed using a lower w/cm
than the mix made with the standard cement. A lower w/cm would explain the higher strengths.
8

The ASTM C666 Standard Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and
Thawing test results for both mixes were very similar, and suggest that both mixes have good
resistance to freezing and thawing deterioration.
Comparing Mortar and Concrete
The strengths of the field concrete made with interground limestone cement were higher than the
concrete made with standard cement. It is difficult to determine how, or if the presence of
limestone in the cement had an influence on this strength increase or on the workability, since
slump was the only measure of workability (and it remained unchanged) and no records were
available for the as built w/cm or use of water reducers.
Contrary to the concrete strengths, the mortar strengths, tested under controlled laboratory
conditions using the exact same mix proportions, were very similar for both mixes made with
and without limestone in the cement. The workability, measured as flow, was the same for both
mortar mixes. The w/cm was relatively high (0.484) but the same for both mortar mixes and no
water reducers were used.

Chapter 4
Two Year Performance Review
The field site was visited on January 4, 2007, and the concrete surface conditions examined. The
concrete flatwork in the test section appeared to be in very good condition (figure 4.1). The test
section built with interground limestone cement is easy to distinguish because the words BEGIN
TEST and END TEST were etched into the wet concrete at the beginning and end of this pour
(as seen in the foreground of figure 4.1a.).

Concrete with interground

limestone cement
a)

Standard concrete
w/o
limestone cement
b)

Figure 4.1 Concrete test section 2-years later (Jan 4, 2007). Looking west
at the concrete made with interground limestone cement (a) and looking
east at the standard concrete (b).

The joints were of average width, not compressed, and in good condition (figure 4.2). There
were a few pop outs in both the interground limestone cement concrete and the standard concrete
sections. Popouts were rare, cover only a small area of the concrete surface, probably will not
affect the durability of the concrete, and are more related to the aggregates used and not to paste
properties. The number of pop outs was similar in both the limestone cement concrete and
standard concrete sections.
There was a crack at the east end of the median near TH 371, in the standard concrete section (as
noted by an X in figure 4.1). This single crack appeared to be more structural in nature and
probably not materials related (see figure 4.3).
There were some very shallow pockmarks on the concrete flatwork surface on the east end of the
project, in the concrete that contained standard cement. These pockmarks, as shown in figure
4.4, are very shallow, do not look fresh and look similar to raindrop impressions. No additional
distress is associated with the pockmarks.

10

Figure 4.2 Joints are in good

conditions

Figure 4.3 Crack - located near the eastern end of the

project as located by the X in figure 4.

The cause of the pockmarks is not clear. The appearance is not flakey, fresh or deep as scaling
usually appears. Doug Schwartz, Mn/DOTs Concrete Engineer, has seen similar distress
patterns in which finishing and/or curing problems resulted in mortar flaking after being exposed
to freezing and thawing.

Figure 4.4 Pockmarks on the concrete surface.

If fresh concrete is exposed to a hard rain or hail while the strengths are low and the surface not
yet hard, it could leave pockmarks such as these. The pockmarks are only in the east end of the
project which was the last section poured. A web-based search of the National Climate Data
Center for 2004 indicates that there was no rain recorded the day this project was poured, 0.06
inches recorded the following day and 0.60 inches of rain the second day after pouring the
concrete. Hail was recorded approximately 50 miles away on October 23, 2004, the second day
after the concrete was poured. Storms, tornados and hail were reported in several areas around
the state on October 29, 2004, eight days after the concrete was poured. The temperatures at the
time of placement and in the days that followed would have influenced the set time and strength
gain (see table 4.1). Cement hydration can be significantly slower at 40F resulting in strengths
that may be half to a quarter of strength typical for concrete cured at 70F (7).

11

Table 14.1 Daily temperatures

Date
10/21/04
10/22/04
10/23/04
10/24/04
10/25/04
10/26/04
10/27/04
10/28/04

Minimum
Maximum
Temperature Temperature
F (C)
F (C)
58 (14)
49 (9)
62 (17)
59 (15)
54 (12)
53 (12)
51 (11)
47 (8)

39 (4)
44 (7)
48 (9)
33 (1)
35 (2)
35 (2)
36 (2)
39 (4)

Overall the concrete appears to be in very good condition. The pop-outs and pockmarks at this
time are no cause for concern other than esthetics. The cracked area should be monitored
periodically for additional cracks, progressive deterioration associated with the crack and/or loss
of integrity of the concrete in that area. Otherwise, more than two years after placement, there is
nothing apparent from the surface survey that indicates either the limestone cement test section
or the control section may have durability problems. The performance of the concrete that
contained 4.3% interground limestone in the cement is comparable to the standard concrete.

12

Chapter 5
Summary and Conclusion
Summary
The literature indicates that most of the chemical and physical properties of cement varies more
between plants than between interground limestone cement and cement without interground
limestone from the same plant. The chemical and physical properties of the two cements tested in
this project were very similar. The set time, fineness test and compressive strength test results of
the two cements fell within the standard deviation considered acceptable by ASTM for testing
the same material. These similarities suggest that the differences between the two cements are
not significant.
The measure of workability for both the mortar (flow) and the concrete (slump) for mixes made
with these two cements were similar. In contrast, although the of strength gains measured for the
two mortars were similar, the strength gains for the two concretes were not. The concrete made
with interground limestone cement had higher strength than for the concrete made with the
cement without limestone. The mortar samples were fabricated and tested in controlled
laboratory conditions. The concrete was fabricated in a batch plant and tested in the field.
The contractors goal for field placement of the two mixes was similar slump; therefore the w/cm
may not have been constant between the two mixes. There is some evidence that suggests the
interground limestone cement concrete was fabricated with a lower w/cm, which would explain
the higher strengths. At the time this report was written there were no documentation available
that identified any adjustments were made to the approved mix design. Other than a letter from
the cement producer, it cannot be concluded if the interground limestone cement was placed with
a lower w/cm, if interground limestone contributed to improved workability or if interground
limestone was the factor that contributed to increased strengths.
The field placement of both concretes went smoothly without any unusual problems with either
mix. The laboratory-conducted tests suggested adequate strengths and good freeze/thaw
durability of both concretes. The appearance and performance of the test section after more than
two winters is excellent. There are no indications of early distress or other problems other than
minor flaking of the mortar that appeared as pockmarks on a small area of the non-limestone
cement concrete.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the cement and concrete tests, the concrete placements and the two-year performance
of the test section it appears that the addition of 4.3% limestone, interground with the cement,
resulted in cement that had similar properties to cement without interground limestone. Also, the
concrete made from cement that contained 4.3% interground limestone had similar plastic and
hardened properties to the concrete made with OPC without interground limestone, with little to
no adjustments to the mix design. The long-term durability of the concrete is yet to be
determined in the field, however laboratory tests and the 2-year performance suggest that the
potential for long-term durability is good.

13

It is recommended that monitoring of the test section continue with a site visit and surface
evaluation every 3-5 years. If surface conditions indicate possible materials related distress then
cores should be taken and a petrographic analysis and other appropriate tests performed to
determine the cause and extent of the problem.
Future paving using cement that contains less than 5% interground limestone cement may not be
a problem, as long as the cement continues to meet the ASTM C150 standards and Mn/DOTs
requirements. ASTM C150-04, section 12.2 requires that when limestone is added to the cement
that the manufacturer shall state in writing the amount of limestone used in the cement. Based on
this research project and research documented in the literature it is advised that all future
Mn/DOT projects be identified and recorded in which interground limestone cement is used, and
that the mill certificates for the cement remain on file.

14

References Cited
1. P. Hawkins, P. Tenis and R. Dewiler, The Use of Limestone in Portland Cement:A Stateof-the-Art Review, Engineering Bulletin 227 (Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association,
2003).
2. A. M. Neville, Properties of Concrete: Fourth and Final Edition (New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1997).
3. R. Detwiler and P. Tennis The Use of Limestone in Portland Cement: A State-of-the-Art
Review, PCA R&D Serial no. 2052a (Skokie, IL: Portland Cement Association, 1996).
4. D. R. Hooton, Effects of Carbonate Additions on Heat of Hydration and Sulfate
Resistance of Portland Cement, Carbonate Additions to Cement, ASTM STP 1064, P.
Klieger and R.D. Hooton, Eds. (Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and
Materials, 1990) pp 73-81.
5. D. A. St. John, A. W. Poole and I. Sims, Concrete Petrography: A handbook of
investigative techniques, New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998).
6. R. D. Hooton and M. D. A. Thomas, The Use of Limestone in Portland Cement: Effects
on Thaumasite Form of Sulfate Attack, PCA R&D Serial no. 2658 (Skokie, IL:
Portland Cement Association, 2002).
7. S. H. Kosmatka, B. Kerkhoff and W. C. Panarese, Design and Control of Concrete
Mixtures: Fourteenth Edition (Skokie, IL, Portland Cement Association, 2002).

15

Appendix A
Concrete Mix Design

A-1

A-2

A-3

Appendix B
Cement Properties

Discussion on sulfate levels in cement

Typically the sulfates (reported as SO3) are kept below 3.00% for Type I and 3.50% for Type III
cements however, if C3A is greater than 8%, as it is here, sulfates can be as high as 3.50% for
Type I and 4.50% for Type III cements. * SO3 are higher than recommended for Type I but is
allowed per ASTM C150 Standard Specification for Portland Cement as long as strength is not
compromised and expansion remains below 0.02%. Both the higher sulfate and C3A content
may reduce the sulfate resistance of concrete made with these cements. The sulfate level is not
affected by the presence of limestone in the cement.

Variability in Strength

B-1

Figure B. 1. Mill Certificate of cement with interground limestone.

B-2

Figure B.2. Properties of cement without interground limestone.

B-3

Figure B.3. Properties of cement with interground limestone.

B-4

Figure B.4. Oxide analysis of cement without interground limestone.

B-5

Figure B.5. Oxide analysis of cement with interground limestone.

B-6

Appendix C
ASTM C666 Freeze/Thaw Test Result

C-1

C-2

C-3

Appendix D
Testing Summary Provided by Holcim

January 24, 2005

Doug Schwartz, PE
Mn/DOT Office of Materials
1400 Gervais Ave.
Maplewood, MN 55109-2044
Dear Mr. Schwartz:
Re:

Testing Summary of Cement with Limestone

This letter is a summary of the testing conducted in Baxter for the St. Lawrence Cement that contained
interground limestone. This testing was conducted in conjunction with a concrete placement for the city
of Baxter. The control cement without interground limestone was also tested to provide a baseline
comparison.
Work Scope
Two seven yard of truck loads of concrete were placed in the median of Edgwood Drive at the
intersection Highway 371. The first truck was batched using cement that contained interground
limestone and the second contained cement from the same source without interground limestone. The
section of median is presented in Photographs No. 1 and 2.

Photograph No. 1, Median placed during test,

looking east.

Photograph No. 2, Median placed during test,

looking west.

D-1

D-2

D-3