Predictive analysis of comPonents to obtain an oriented robustness

Marco Francini R&D Laboratory - Unical S.p.A., Buzzi Unicem Group introduction During an extended concrete supply some operational parameters show an unavoidable variability. Self consolidating concrete, with its strict rheological requirements, can easily fall outside the acceptance intervals, so it seems less controllable over time compared to ordinary concrete. To solve this problem we must elaborate a robust recipe, capable of withstanding changes without significantly compromising the rheological properties. In stricter terms, we can assume as adequately robust a mixture when its rheological conformity range related to the variation of one or more parameters encloses the entire range of variability of the parameters themselves (1). If the variability and robustness fields are independently defined, the model is easily manageable through numerical simulations. First, we define the field of variability, assuming the values that each operating parameter can take. Then we examine all the properties of the available components to experimentally identify a mixture with a sufficiently broad field of robustness.

Figure 1. Field of variability related to X and Y parameters and relative field of conformity (robustness) of a mixture.

However, it is incorrect to consider totally independent the two fields. Experience suggests indeed that during a long supply one of the most fickle factors is the quality of components. The previous model, instead, assumes it as defined a priori, considering it only during mix design operations. The fickleness of the properties of components makes the field of variability more complex; at the same time it significantly affects the field of robustness. In other words, it changes from within the mixture itself.

Any attempt to manage during production this type of qualitative variability applying random numerical simulations has many chances to fail because of the complexity and interdependence of the factors at stake. We therefore propose to find a more adherent and flexible system that could ensure over time the robustness of our recipes, even in the case of quality changes of the components. eXamination of the variability field variability factors As previously seen, the factors that determine the field of variability and affect the stability of a mixture can be separated into two groups: the operative ones, connected with mix realization and casting (external factors); and the qualitative ones, that comply with the properties of the components (internal factors). Most laboratory studies intending to simulate the range of variability to which a mixture is subject during production are focused on external factors. In Table 1 is reported a summary list of these factors.
Parameter Components dosage Moisture of fine aggregates Moisture of coarse aggregates Duration of the mixing Initial slump flow Initial concrete temperature External air temperature Duration of the transport Concrete volume transported Duration of the casting Lenght of pumping pipes Presumable range of variability 2% 3% 1% 3 min 25 mm 5C 8C 20 min 3 m3 15 min 50 m

Table 1. Examples of external variability factors.

To experimentally simulate the influence of the external factors we usually assume them, in first approximation, as reciprocally independent and randomly variable. The properties of the components, that are the primary variables to appraise during mix design, are not recognized as equally significant sources of variability during production. Typically, components are well studied before choosing them, but not enough after the fact. In any case, the internal changes occurring during industrial production are managed the same way as external variables, bringing them back to random oscillations of few, simple and substantially independent parameters. Conversely, troubles experienced during long supplies point out that an excessive simplification removes the model from the reality and makes the whole system easy to handle but unable to effectively manage the problems and the changes.

modernizing processes to limit the variability? To improve the manageability of the system we could try to minimize the wideness of the field of variability, increasing the standardization of the processes (supplying, production, casting). The building system modernization can be useful in decreasing the external variations, but this isnt so true for the external ones. The most recent and virtuous trends of our sector, in fact, involve an increasing use of recycled and local materials, in order to guarantee the sustainability and to limit the environmental impact. This fact, if anything, causes a sudden rise of the qualitative variability, as shown in Table 2.
Parameter Aggregate - fineness modulus Aggregate - 63 microns passing quantity Aggregate - water absorption Aggregate - density Fine Aggregate - methilene blue value Filler Aggregate - methilene blue value Addition or cement - density Addition or cement - water request w/out admixture at equal flow Addition or cement - admixture request at equal water and flow Addition or cement - Blaine Presumable range of variability with traditional ingredients 0,2% 2% 0,3% 0,01 g/cm3 0,2 g/kg 0,5 g/kg 0,02 g/cm 2% 0,10 % 200 cm3/g
3

with recycled ingredients 0,3% 4% 1,0% 0,04 g/cm3 0,8 g/kg 3,0 g/kg 0,03 g/cm3 5% 0,50 % 400 cm3/g

Table 2. Esemples of internal variability

recognizing the oriented variability Since it is impossible to limit the extent of changes and it is very difficult to define them with a random numerical modelling, an observation comes in our help: the internal variations are rarely unforeseeable; on the contrary they are often oriented because they are connected to the changeability of the particular manufacturing cycle of the component. The identification of the expected change directions of the production processes that lead to the component making helps us to predict its variability and to individuate the interdependence of the internal variability factors. The knowledge of the main causes of the component variability (change in raw materials; switch of lithological facies along the quarry-front; alteration of industrial or petrogenetic process) allows us to identify the axis of the variability field, whose extremes can be termed as poles of oriented variability. In order to simplify this model, it is necessary to identify a pointer, that is an easily manageable parameter enabling us to continuously monitor the current position between the poles: it will suggest the variation of the component properties and the presumable features of the resulting concrete. Table 3 lists some examples of oriented variability of the properties of different components: a calcareous filler with a variable selection process; a composite cement with a variable pozzolanic addition; a fine aggregate with a variable petrographic origin.

a) Limestone filler
Variable element type of selection process Poles of oriented variability A- selection by aspiration B- selection by press-filter Pointer parameter Properties influenced by variations component - fines content concrete - water request - V-funnel time - bleeding

X- percentage passing the - specific surface 40 m sieve - water retention

b) composite cement
Variable element Poles of oriented variability A- fly ashes from thermoelectric plant A B- fly ashes from thermoelectric plant B Pointer parameter Properties influenced by variations component - specific surface X- blaine - electrochemical interaction with admixtures concrete - water request - slump loss - admixture request

type of pozzolanic addition

c) fine aggregate
Variable element Poles of oriented variability A- right quarry-front: limestone formation, calcarenite facies active quarry-front B- central quarry-front: limestone formation, marly facies C- left quarry-front: ophiolitic formation, serpentinite facies Pointer parameter Observation with magnifying glass: Properties influenced by variations component - density methilene blue shape factor specific surface electrochemical interaction with admixtures concrete - admixture request - early slump loss - water request - bleeding - density

X- percentage of white lithology Y- percentage of ocher lithology Z- percentage of green lithology

Table 3. Examples of oriented variability of the properties of compenents

Moreover, Figure 2 shows some examples of variation of the properties of concrete according to the oriented variability of the same three components. miX desiGn for an oriented robustness We have seen that while the external variables are effectively managed through random numerical models, the internal ones are better predictable relying on the knowledge of their source (industrial or geological genesis) and defining oriented fields of variability. In order to obtain an effective field of conformity containing the entire field of internal variability, we must therefore seek a similarly oriented field of robustness, intentionally extended along the most likely direction of internal variability. To achieve this result through a classic method of single mix design, we must experimentally pick out a suitable design criteria, capable to counterbalance the expected quality change of the component. Unfortunately the static robustness given by a single mixture, although well designed, is rarely able to compensate for a strong internal variability such as that in Table 3.

Figure 2. Examples of variability of concrete properties for the same three components (a, b and c)

In many cases it is preferable to seek a dynamic robustness, not based on a single mixture but on a continuous family of homogeneous mixtures, as shown in Figure 3, within which we can choose every day the best recipe. To do this a producer can use multiple mix design techniques (similar to those typically used to simultaneously conceive several products in a catalogue) considering the variability of internal factors such as a shifting performance target to hit. In theory this kind of dynamic robustness can properly translate the field of conformity keeping it centered in the field of operational variability. In order to use this system during production, we need frequent in-process checks that guarantee the monitoring of the parameters subject to variability. It is clear that this is possible only if the checked parameters are few and easily controllable. To achieve this extreme simplification still maintaining the model fitting to reality it is necessary to bring the large number of random variables to a limited number of foresee-

ing variables, appropriately linked to a source-pointed parameter, by way of the definition of simple controls on components. We need to choose simple indicators that reveal the current position of the components along their axes of oriented variability and will allow us to immediately change the recipe without need for further tests.

Figure 3. Example of a mix design family for recipe optimization between the variability poles

conclusions A recipe robust enough to neutralize any changes in the quality of components during the supply is extremely difficult to achieve. In any case, a field of robustness so wide to contain the entire spectrum of internal variability would be often uneconomical. Much more versatile, however, is the use of continuous optimization of the mix, drawing from families of homogeneous recipes developed along the most probable axes of internal variability. This method is really effective when it is continuously supported by monitoring the quality of components, on the basis of appropriate source-linked parameters. Finally it is important to consider that a similar approach to industrial mix design can not be implemented in those contractual arrangements involving the use of filed and unchangeable recipes. Supply orders obliging to define a fixed qualified recipe are almost always unfit to manage over time the changes of the properties of components. references (1) Nunes S., Figueiras H., Milheiro Oliveira P., Sousa Coutinho J., Figueiras J., A methodology to assess robustness of SCC mixtures, Cement and concrete research, 2006, Vol. 36, No. 12, pp. 2115-2122