1

COMPATIBILITY ISSUES OF NSF-PCE

SUPERPLASTICIZERS WITH SEVERAL LOTS OF
DIFFERENT CEMENT TYPES (LONG-TERM RESULTS)


by Luigi Coppola, Sergio Lorenzi and Alessandra Buoso

Synopsis: This paper focuses on the compatibility issue between cement and
chemical admixtures. Different kind of chemical admixtures were considered
belonging to naphthalene (NSF) and polycarboxylate-based families. Five lots
of six different cements widely spread in Italy were considered. Mortars and
concretes were manufactured by varying superplasticizer dosage to achieve
fixed workability at the end of mixing. Flow retention up to sixty minutes and
tendency to entrap air in the mortars and concrete were measured to evaluate
performances in terms of water reduction and workability loss of each
chemical admixture. Compressive strength at 1, 7 and 28 days was also
considered. The rheological and mechanical behaviour of manufactured
concretes showed good agreement with results collected on mortars.




Keywords: Cement-superplasticizer compatibility, Performance variability,
Superplasticizers.



2

Luigi Coppola is professor of Structural Materials for Concrete Construction at
University of Bergamo, Faculty of Engineering. He has authored more than one hundred
papers on concrete properties, durability, admixtures and self-compacting concrete. He
was recipient of CANMET/ACI award for the outstanding contribution in concrete
durability.

Sergio Lorenzi, engineer, is a researcher in University of Bergamo, Faculty of
Engineering.


INTRODUCTION

The problem of cement and superplasticizer compatibility was taken into account since
the end of the 70s and early 80s, with the use of superplasticizers becoming ever more
widespread. In a The superplasticizer-cement incompatibility can lead to several
rheological underperformance: for example early slump loss (1,2) or poor water reduction
that can lead to overdosage to achieve minimum workability at the end of the mixing that
cause obviously an increase of retarding effect of superplasticizer on cement
hydratation(3). the scientific community was faced to the issue of their under-
performance. These issues are more evident if polycarboxylate-based superplasticizers
that offers higher performances in terms of water reduction and workability retainment. A
lot of researches were conducted to evaluate critical factors that accentuate this
behaviors, by considering different kind of polycarboxylate type superplasticizer and
modifying polymer chemical structure(4). The research evidenced that chemical
composition of cement is strictly connected to incompatibility issues, especially the alkali
content of cement(5). In this work NSF and PCE type superplasticizer were considered to
manufacture mortar and concrete.

Materials

The following cements - according to EN 197/1 - have been used:

CEM II/A-LL 42.5 R (Limestone Portland Cement)
CEM II/B-LL 32.5 R (Limestone Portland Cement)
CEM II/B-S 32.5 R (Slag Portland Cement)
CEM III/A 32.5 N (Blast-Furnace Slag Cement)
CEM IV/A (P) 42.5 R (Natural Pozzolanic Cement)
CEM IV/A (P) 32.5 R (Natural Pozzolanic Cement)

For each cement, 5 lots were considered:

lot 1 produced on September 2005,
lot 2 produced on March 2006,
lot 3 produced on March 2007,
lot 4 produced on October 2007



3

lot 5 produced on February 2008.

Chemical compositions of the five lots of cements used are shown in Table 1. The
pozzolanic index of the two pozzolanic cements(five lots) is shown in Table 2.

The superplasticizers have been selected among those of most widespread use in Europe.
They belong both to the PCE family, named ACR1 and ACR3, and to the NSF family,
named NSF3. Main characteristics of the PCE superplasticizers are summarized in Table
3 All the superplasticizers are commercial products.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

In order to study the compatibility of cement/superplasticizers system, six different
cement types, either limestone Portland cements, slag and pozzolanic cements have been
selected. Performance of superplasticizers belonging to both NSF and PCE families have
been evaluated.

Mortar and concrete tests

The tests have been performed on CEN mortar, mixed according to EN 196-2. Standard
sand has been used, and the w/c has been fixed to 0.50 in all the mixtures. The mortars
have been mixed to achieve an initial spread of 120% (i.e. 220 mm) measured on the flow
table, by adjusting the amount of superplasticizer to meet the targeted requirement.
The flow retention has been evaluated by measuring flow after 30 min and 1 hr. The
mortar has been kept still with its pot covered by a wet cloth to avoid water evaporation.
Before the flow measurement the mortar has been mixed for one minute at high speed in
the mixer.
The specific mass of the hardened mortar has been measured in order to assess the air
entrapping tendency of the mix. Compressive strength of the mortars at 1, 7 and 28 days
were measured to evaluate the influence of the superplasticizers on the hydration process
of the cement.
Unless otherwise indicated, all the manipulations have been performed in a room with
controlled temperature (23.5C) and relative humidity equal to65% .

Tests on concrete were also carried out. Sataf aggregates (: were mixed to meet Bolomey
curve. Tests on concrete were conducted by considering cements belonging to lot 3, 4 and
5. Water cement ratio was fixed equal to 0.52 for all the mixtures and superplasticizer
dosage was modified to attain constant slump value equal to 230 mm (UNI-EN12350-2)
at the end of the mixing procedure. Workability values were also evaluated according to
UNI-EN12350-5. Air entrapping tendency of mixtures was evaluated by means of air
porosimeter (UNI-EN12350-7). Specific mass of fresh concrete was also evaluated
according to UNI-EN12350-6.
Both specific mass and compressive strength of hardened concrete was measured after 1,
7 and 28 days. Mixing procedure and measures on fresh concrete were conducted at room
temperature (22C) and relative humidity equal to 65%.




4

RESULTS

Superplasticizer dosages are all expressed by considering dry polymer percentage on
cement mass.

Tests on mortars

Figure 1 shows the dosage of superplasticizer to achieve 220 mm spread value at the end
of the mixing procedure. The mean value of superplasticizer dosage was calculated for
each lot. The dosages of naphthalene-based superplasticizer are always higher than PCE-
based superplasticizers: PCE-based superplasticizers generally showed higher efficiency
in terms of water reduction than NSF-based superplasticizers. PCE-based products
showed generally a higher variability between different lots. Both PCE-based products
showed a higher variation between different lots and naphthalene-based products showed
lower variation, instead. Figure 2 shows relative standard deviation (RSD) of
superplasticizer dosage. Generally, lowest RSD values are achieved by NSF-based
admixtures for all lots considered; PCE-based admixtures showed higher RSD values in
terms of dosage if both different cements or different lots of cement are considered. It can
be concluded that generally NSF-based admixtures showed lower efficiency in terms of
water reduction, however lower performances variability can be evidenced if different
lots of cement are considered.
Figure 4 shows the spread value of mortars manufactured during experimentation: mean
value of workability after 60 minutes for NSF-based products is generally lower than
PCEs. NSF superplasticizer present also a lower variability of spread value between
different lots of cement, independently by the dosage (Figure 6). A lower sensitivity
respect to different lots can be noticed in the case of NSF admixtures, if compared to
PCEs. Figure 5 summarizes the RSD values in terms of spread at 60 minutes since the
mixing procedure. Lower RSD values can be considered for NSF-based products rather
than PCEs. NSFs products generally showed poorer performances in terms of both water
reduction and workability retainment than PCEs, but generally better constancy of
performances upon different cement type/class and lot.
Compressive strength values at 1 day values are reported into Figure 7: NSF-based
superplasticizers presented higher compressive strength values at 1 day PCEs, as reported
in a previous work(6). This effect can be ascribed to higher retardation induced by PCE
admixtures, which prevails on dispersing effect. RSD of compressive strength at 1 day is
shown into Figure 8: higher variability between lots of cement can be noticed for PCE-
based admixtures, especially in the cases of CEM II/A-LL 42.5R and CEM II/B-S 32.5R.
Compressive strength values at 28 days (Figure 9) evidenced slight differences between
NSF and PCEs products, confirming that the side effect of retardation can be considered
negligible at 28 days. Figure 10 shows RSD values calculated on compressive strength at
28 days: variability is always higher for PCEs admixtures.








5

Tests on concrete

Mean values of superplasticizer dosage to attain the target spread value (220 mm slump)
are showed in Figure 11. Higher superplasticizer dosage can be noticed in the case of
NSF-based products, as reported in the case of mortars. The differences between lots is
slight for all the admixtures. Figure 12 shows RSD of superplasticizer dosage evaluated
on all the mixtures manufactured by using different cements belonging to each lot
considered. The results seems to confirm the tendency presented for mortars: lower RSD
can be noticed in the case of NSF-based superplasticizers respect to PCEs (Figure 12).
Figure 13 summarizes the mean values of spread measured after 60 minutes since mixing
procedure. It can be noticed that NSF admixture generally showed poorer workability
values at 60 minutes than PCEs, that generally showed similar behaviors and a better
workability retainment. Compressive strength values at 1 day are similar between
polycarboxylate and NSF-based admixtures (Figure 14). No anomalous air-entrapping
tendency was evidenced for both superplasticizer family. Generally, higher 1 day
compressive strength values were achieved by NSF-based admixture, as reported during
tests conducted on mortar. RSD of spread values (Figure 15) is lower in the case of NSF-
based admixtures than PCEs, as noticed in the tests on mortar. Figure 16 showed that
compressive strength at 28 days for PCE admixtures is generally slight higher than NSFs.
This fact confirm the results obtained on mortars. RSD data collected at 28 days showed
lower values for both admixture classes and different lots of all cements (Figure 17).

DISCUSSION

Data collected on mortars confirmed that superplasticizer dosage is strictly dependent
upon the cement type and superplasticizer. The PCE family superplasticizer are obviously
more efficient in terms of water reduction than traditional Naphthalene-based admixtures:
the mean values of dosages collected on mortars between 5 different lots of six different
cement evidenced that NSF products showed generally lower efficiency compared to
PCEs. This fact can also be noticed in concrete tests that generally confirm the same
result: it can be observed that concrete test seem to enhance the higher efficiency of PCEs
admixtures: generally double efficiency in terms of water reduction to achieve the initial
workability can be noticed. On the contrary, NSF based admixture showed considerably
performance constancy between different cement and different lots of the same cement:
the lowest standard deviation results were collected in the case of NSF admixtures. On
the contrary, PCEs showed higher specificity upon the cement type or lot of the same
cement: standard deviation of dosage are generally higher than NSF superplasticizers.
Generally PCE admixtures showed a better behavior in terms of workability retainment,
confirming that steric hinderance mechanism is more efficient than electrostatic
repulsion. NSF admixtures showed poorer workability at 60 minutes on mortar
manufactured by different lots of cement compared to PCEs, but workability values are
similar for all the lots considered: this fact evidenced that performances of NSF
superplasticizers are generally similar between lots and lower lot/cement dependency can
be underlined. Figure 6 showed the correlation between superplasticizer dosage and
spread value after 60 minutes since mixing: no correlation between PCE and NSF dosage
with spread retainment can be noticed; PCE-based admixtures showed scattered spread



6

values for both low and high superplasticizer dosages, confirming a higher cement
type/lot dependency than NSFs. Data on concrete seem to confirm the results collected on
mortar and the same tendency can be evidenced.

Compressive strength values after 1 day showed higher value in terms of compressive
strength for NSF superplasticizer than PCEs, meaning that polycarboxylate-based
admixtures evidenced higher retardation effect than NSFs. RSD data underlines also an
important effect: PCE-based admixtures showed higher RSD values of compressive
strength after 1 day for all cement type considered (mean value of data calculated
between different lots): this fact seems to evidence that superplasticizer dosage variations
heavily influence hydratation kinetics.
Compressive strength after 28 days evidenced that PCE-based admixtures attained higher
values than NSFs: this fact confirm that dispersing effect is prevalent on side effect of
retardation. Higher dispersing ability of PCEs lead obviously to higher 28 days
compressive strength than NSFs. Generally lower RSD values can be evidenced at 28
days for both type of admixtures, as expected; also in this case lower RSD values were
collected for NSF-based admixtures. Data collected on concrete seems to confirm the
same data collected on mortars, as evidence in Figure 16and Figure 17


CONCLUSIONS

The present paper analyzed different superplasticizers in combination with different
cement types/lots. Chemical admixture performances were evaluated on both mortars and
concrete. Generally higher sensitivity of cement type/lot can be evidenced in the case of
PCE products, while a higher constancy of behavior is observed with NSF based
products.

Superplasticizer performances are strictly dependent on cement lot and particularly, NSF
products generally showed higher constancy in terms of performances but generally and
lower efficiency in terms of water reduction to attain the same initial workability than
PCEs.

The spread retention characteristics also depend on the cement type/lot. Generally spread
value after 60 cannot be related to superplasticizer dosage for both NSF and PCE
admixtures. Lower efficiency in terms of spread retention of NSF-based admixtures can
be evidenced. PCEs showed higher specificity upon cement type/lot

Compressive strength at 1 day of NSF mortars are substantially equal or higher than these
collected in the case of PCEs, independently of the cement type and the cement lot.
Generally 1-day compressive strength of PCE superplasticized mortars is strongly
influenced by the cement type/ lot, as evidenced in previous work (6).

On the contrary, compressive strength at 28 days collected for mortars manufactured with
NSF-based admixtures are generally lower than those manufactured by using PCEs,
independently of the cement type and the cement lot.



7


Good correspondences between data collected on mortar and concrete can be evidenced.


REFERENCES


(1) Meyer L.M. and Perenchio W.F., Theory of Concrete Slump Loss as related to the
Use of Chemical Admixtures, Concrete International, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1979, pp.36-43.
(2) Ramachandran V.S., Beaudoin J.J. and Shihva Z., Control of Slump Loss in
Superplasticized Concrete, Matriaux et Constructions, No. 22, 1989, pp.107-111.
(3) Johnston C.D., Admixture-Cement Incompatibility: A Case History, Concrete
International, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1987, pp. 51-60
(4) K. Yamada, T. Takahashi, S. Hanehara, M. Matsuhisa, Effects of the chemical
structure on the properties of polycarboxylate-type superplasticizer, Cem. Concr. Res. 30
(2000) 197200.
(5) S. Jiang, Byung-Gi Kim, Pierre-Claude Aitcin, Importance of adeguate soluble
alkali content to ensure cement/superplasticizer compatibility, Cem. Concr. Res. 29
(1999) 71-78.
(6) L. Coppola, S. Lorenzi, P. Marcassoli, An experimental evaluation of the
compatibility of NSF and PCE superplasticizers with different cement types, Ninth
CANMET/ACI International Conference on Fly Ash, Silica fume, Slag and Natural
Pozzolans in Concrete, Varsavia, Polonia, 27 Maggio - 1 Giugno 2007







8

Table 1: Chemical composition (% by mass) of the cements
CEM IV / A - P 42,5 R
lot 1 lot 2 lot 3 lot 4 lot 5
SiO
2
20.87 25.32 25.7 25.21 25.08
Al
2
O
3
5.55 7.28 7.63 7.44 7.23
Fe
2
O
3
2.91 3.49 3.69 3.54 3.53
TiO
2
0.16 0.26 0.18 0.26 0.25
CaO 58.65 53.07 51.59 52.83 51.96
MgO 1.75 1.71 1.96 1.97 1.9
SO
3
2.71 3.09 3.14 3.38 3.4
Na
2
O 0.5 0.66 0.7 0.71 0.67
K
2
O 1.22 2.14 1.95 1.9 1.91
Cl 0 0 0.011 0.01 0.01

CEM III / A 32,5 N
lot 1 lot 2 lot 3 lot 4 lot 5
SiO
2
24.93 25.05 24.51 24.19 23.8
Al
2
O
3
6.92 6.42 6.68 6.19 6.36
Fe
2
O
3
2.6 2.89 2.89 2.64 2.75
TiO
2
0.22 0.25 0.29 0.2 0.23
CaO 52.72 55.56 54.4 56.08 56.08
MgO 4.64 4.08 4.64 3.83 3.93
SO
3
3.16 2.81 3.3 3.36 3.48
Na
2
O 0.19 0.21 0.26 0.24 0.3
K
2
O 0.65 0.61 0.63 0.68 0.52
Cl 0.07 0.12 0.06 0.05 0.04



CEM IV / A - P 32,5 R
lot 1 lot 2 lot 3 lot 4 lot 5
SiO
2
26.92 28.53 27.84 28.06 27.46
Al
2
O
3
5.04 5.38 5.15 5.29 5.17
Fe
2
O
3
2.36 2.67 2.57 2.56 2.27
TiO
2
0.26 0.13 0.11 0.16 0.16
CaO 50.15 49.25 50.19 49.87 50.05
MgO 2.28 2.8 2.91 2.58 2.69
SO
3
1.82 2.24 2.21 2.12 2.48
Na
2
O 0.38 0.27 0.26 0.34 0.33
K
2
O 0.92 1 1.03 0.96 0.95
Cl 0 0 0.015 0.03 0.05
CEM II / B - S 32,5 R
lot 1 lot 2 lot 3 lot 4 lot 5
SiO
2
26.78 24.75 25.36 24.31 25.4
Al
2
O
3
7.6 6.4 6.72 6.5 7.01
Fe
2
O
3
1.87 2.16 2 2.03 1.98
TiO
2
0.21 0.2 0.1 0.12 0.22
CaO 50.91 55.1 54.26 55.66 54.43
MgO 5.56 4.38 4.61 4.54 4.93
SO
3
3.13 2.32 3 3.07 2.65
Na
2
O 0.2 0.28 0.36 0.34 0.34
K
2
O 0.65 0.79 0.72 0.75 0.83
Cl 0.08 0.06 0.089 0.1 0.07
CEM II / A - LL 42,5 R
lot 1 lot 2 lot 3 lot 4 lot 5
SiO
2
18.88 20.24 19.81 18.59 19.03
Al
2
O
3
4.59 3.96 4.37 4.34 4.31
Fe
2
O
3
2.34 2.23 1.97 2.4 2.45
TiO
2
0.07 0.2 0.19 0.14 0.12
CaO 61.17 61.72 61.34 60.59 60.57
MgO 2.26 2.23 2.47 2.28 2.64
SO
3
2.84 2.38 3.08 3.5 3.02
Na
2
O 0.16 0.2 0.41 0.33 0.35
K
2
O 0.89 0.79 0.86 0.83 0.95
Cl 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05
CEM II / B - LL 32,5 R
lot 1 lot 2 lot 3 lot 4 lot 5
SiO
2
16.11 16.65 16.34 16.93 17.38
Al
2
O
3
3.4 3.71 3.02 3.93 3.54
Fe
2
O
3
2.25 1.94 3.12 1.88 2.59
TiO
2
0.09 0.09 0.18 0.06 0.13
CaO 60.09 59.85 60.85 60.57 60.72
MgO 2.43 2.06 2.22 2.33 1.98
SO
3
2.17 2.78 2.3 2.37 2.38
Na
2
O 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.17 0.17
K
2
O 0.59 0.55 0.57 0.63 0.63
Cl 0 0.01 0.018 0.01 0.01



9

Table 2: Pozzolanic index of the two pozzolanic cements


CEM IV / A - P 42,5 R
lot 1 lot 2 lot 3 lot 4 lot 5
[OH]
mmol / l 73.44 81.23 79.75 79.79 75.24
[CaO] mmol
/ l 7.09 5.35 4.69 4.31 4.25
Pozzolanic
index neg neg pos pos pos











Figure 1: Grading of Sataf aggregates


Table 3: Main properties of polycarboxylate-based superplasticizers
Properties NSF3 ACR1 ACR3
Molecular weight (MW) (g/mol) 14000

MW/Mn 1.17

SIDE CHAIN LENGTH (g/mol) 3000-5000 1000
MONOMER TYPE
Ester of acrylic or
methacrylic acid
Ester of acrylic or
methacrylic acid
ACID/ESTER 5 3.5


0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.1 1 10 100
P
a
s
s
i
n
g

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

(
%
)
Sieve size (mm)
CEM IV / A - P 32,5 R
lot 1 lot 2 lot 3 lot 4 lot 5
[OH]
mmol / l 48.14 45.24 44.28 46.27 46.09
[CaO]
mmoli / l 8.21 7.72 7.58 7.21 6.91
Pozzolanic
index pos pos pos pos pos



10


Figure 2: Mean value of superplasticizer dosage (% of dry polymer vs cement mass) to reach 120%
workability on mortars (data referred to all cements)

Figure 3: Relative standard deviation (RSD) of superplasticizer dosage (data are referred to all
cements)


0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
lot
1
lot
2
lot
3
lot
4
lot
5
lot
1
lot
2
lot
3
lot
4
lot
5
lot
1
lot
2
lot
3
lot
4
lot
5
NSF3 ACR1 ACR3
S
u
p
e
r
p
l
a
s
t
i
c
i
z
e
r

d
o
s
a
g
e

(
%

v
s

c
e
m
e
n
t

m
a
s
s
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
lot 1lot 2lot 3lot 4lot 5lot 1lot 2lot 3lot 4lot 5lot 1lot 2lot 3lot 4lot 5
NSF3 ACR1 ACR3
R
S
D

o
f

s
u
p
e
r
p
l
a
s
t
i
c
i
z
e
r

d
o
s
a
g
e

(
%
)



11


Figure 4: Spread value of superplasticizers after 60 minutes since mixing procedure

Figure 5: Relative standard deviation (RSD) of spread value of superplasticizer after 60 minutes
since mixing procedure (data are referred to all cements)

10
12
14
16
18
20
22
lot 1 lot 2 lot 3 lot 4 lot 5 lot 1 lot 2 lot 3 lot 4 lot 5 lot 1 lot 2 lot 3 lot 4 lot 5
NSF3 ACR1 ACR3
S
p
r
e
a
d

a
f
t
e
r

6
0

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

(
m
m
)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
lot 1 lot 2 lot 3 lot 4 lot 5 lot 1 lot 2 lot 3 lot 4 lot 5 lot 1 lot 2 lot 3 lot 4 lot 5
NSF3 ACR1 ACR3
S
p
r
e
a
d

a
f
t
e
r

6
0

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

(
m
m
)




Figure 6: Spread value after 60' as a function o

Figure 7: Mean values of compressive strength at 1 day of mortars manufactured by NSF3
superplasticizer compared to PCE superplasticizers

0
5
10
15
20
25
0.0
S
p
r
e
a
d

v
a
l
u
e

a
f
t
e
r

6
0
'
Superplasticizer dosage (% dry vs cement mass)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
CEM
IV/A(P)
42.5R
CEM
IV/A(P)
32.5R
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

a
f
t
e
r

1

d
a
y

(
M
P
a
)
12
Spread value after 60' as a function of superplasticizer dosage of mortars manufactured
(data are referred to all cements and lots)

Mean values of compressive strength at 1 day of mortars manufactured by NSF3
superplasticizer compared to PCE superplasticizers
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Superplasticizer dosage (% dry vs cement mass)
PCEs
NSF
CEM
IV/A(P)
32.5R
CEM III|/A
32.5N
CEM II/B-S
32.5R
CEM II/A-
LL 42.5R
CEM II/B
LL 32.5R
NSF3
PCE

superplasticizer dosage of mortars manufactured

Mean values of compressive strength at 1 day of mortars manufactured by NSF3
1.2
Superplasticizer dosage (% dry vs cement mass)
CEM II/B-
LL 32.5R
NSF3
PCE-based



13


Figure 8: RSD of compressive strength at 1 days of NSF3 respect to mortars manufactured by PCE
superplasticizers



Figure 9: Mean values of compressive strength at 28 day of NSF3 respect to mortars manufactured
by PCE superplasticizers


0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
CEM IV/A(P)
42.5R
CEM IV/A(P)
32.5R
CEM III|/A
32.5N
CEM II/B-S
32.5R
CEM II/A-LL
42.5R
CEM II/B-LL
32.5R
R
S
D

o
f

c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

a
f
t
e
r

1

d
a
y

(
%
)
NSF3
PCE-based
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
CEM
IV/A(P)
42.5R
CEM
IV/A(P)
32.5R
CEM III|/A
32.5N
CEM II/B-S
32.5R
CEM II/A-
LL 42.5R
CEM II/B-
LL 32.5R
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

a
f
t
e
r

2
8


d
a
y

(
M
P
a
)
NSF3
PCE-based



14


Figure 10: RSD of compressive strength at 28 days of NSF3 respect to mortars manufactured by
PCE superplasticizers




Figure 11: Mean value of superplasticizer dosage (% of dry polymer vs cement mass) to reach 120%
workability on concrete (data referred to all cements)


0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
CEM IV/A(P)
42.5R
CEM IV/A(P)
32.5R
CEM III|/A
32.5N
CEM II/B-S
32.5R
CEM II/A-LL
42.5R
CEM II/B-LL
32.5R
R
S
D

o
f

c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

a
f
t
e
r

2
8

d
a
y

(
%
)
NSF3
PCE-based
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
lot 3 lot 4 lot 5 lot 3 lot 4 lot 5 lot 3 lot 4 lot 5
NSF3 ACR1 ACR3
M
e
a
n

v
a
l
u
e

o
f

s
u
p
e
r
p
l
a
s
t
i
c
i
z
e
r

d
o
s
a
g
e

(
%

v
s

c
e
m
e
n
t

m
a
s
s
)



15


Figure 12: RSD of superplasticizer dosage (% of dry polymer vs cement mass) to reach 120%
workability on concrete (data referred to all cements)




Figure 13: Mean value of spread value of superplasticizers after 60 minutes since mixing procedure



0
10
20
30
40
50
60
lot 3 lot 4 lot 5 lot 3 lot 4 lot 5 lot 3 lot 4 lot 5
NSF3 ACR1 ACR3
R
S
D

o
f


s
u
p
e
r
p
l
a
s
t
i
c
i
z
e
r

d
o
s
a
g
e

(
%
)
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
lot 3 lot 4 lot 5 lot 3 lot 4 lot 5 lot 3 lot 4 lot 5
NSF3 ACR1 ACR3
M
e
a
n

v
a
l
u
e

o
f

s
p
r
e
a
d

a
f
t
e
r

6
0

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

(
m
m
)



16


Figure 14: Mean values of compressive strength at 1 day of concrete manufactured by NSF3
superplasticizer compared to PCE superplasticizers

Figure 15: RSD of compressive strength at 1 day of concrete manufactured by NSF3 superplasticizer
compared to PCE superplasticizers



0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
CEM II A/LL 42.5 R CEM IV A/P 42.5 R CEM III A 32.5 N
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

a
f
t
e
r

1

d
a
y

(
M
P
a
)
NSF3
PCE-based
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
CEM II A/LL 42.5 R CEM IV A/P 42.5 R CEM III A 32.5 N
R
S
D

o
f

c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

a
f
t
e
r

1

d
a
y

(
%
)
NSF3
PCE-based



17


Figure 16: Mean values of compressive strength at 28 days of concrete manufactured by NSF3
superplasticizer compared to PCE superplasticizers


Figure 17: RSD of compressive strength at 28 days of concrete manufactured by NSF3
superplasticizer compared to PCE superplasticizers

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
CEM II A/LL 42.5 R CEM IV A/P 42.5 R CEM III A 32.5 N
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

a
f
t
e
r

2
8

d
a
y
s

(
M
P
a
)
NSF3
PCE-based
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
CEM II A/LL 42.5 R CEM IV A/P 42.5 R CEM III A 32.5 N
R
S
D

o
f

c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

a
f
t
e
r

2
8

d
a
y
s

(
%
)
NSF3
PCE-based