Abstract

Bulk oxide determinations from two pairs of ASTM C150/C150M-12 portland cements are used to calculate precision and accuracy values for X-ray fluorescence (XRF) by both the fused glass bead and the pressed powder sample preparation methods. The first pair of cements are ordinary portland cement (OPC) with 45 participants, while the second pair contains ca. 3 % limestone, with 24 labs participating. Each lab provided results from six replicates analyzed in duplicate, covering fifteen analytes, CaO, SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, SO3, MgO, Na2O, K2O, TiO2, P2O5, Mn2O3, SrO, ZnO, Cr2O3, and Cl, with the laboratories roughly split between the two different sample preparations. Chemical data using traditional chemical analyses (the Reference Methods per ASTM C150) from the Cement and Concrete Reference Laboratory (CCRL) proficiency test program were included for comparison to the XRF results. Precision measures for within- and between-laboratory performance are presented as 1σ and 95 % limits (ASTM d2s). Accuracy criteria are based upon a two-sided 95 % prediction interval for the mean of two separate test results, defining the range of values one might expect for each analyte relative to a certified value of a reference material. Comparing to current C114 limits, based upon classical wet chemical analysis, within-lab precision for CaO is larger, wheras SiO2precision is similar to existing limits. Al2O3 and Fe2O3 precisions are substantially better, whereas for the remaining analytes, the precision is generally similar to ASTM C114 limits. A comparison of the ASTM accuracy criteria shows that CaO accuracy is poorer than the current limit, SO3 is larger, SiO2 and Na2O are similar, while the remaining accuracy limits for XRF are generally better than the ASTM C114 criteria. The powder method shows a positive relative bias for CaO for the cements containing less than 5 % limestone, suggesting a need for more limestone-containing reference materials for powder method calibration for these cements.

References

1.
ASTM
, “
Data Considered by Committee C-1 of the American Society for Testing Materials in Preparing the Standard Specifications and Tests for Portland Cement (Serial Designation C 9-17), Committee C-1
,”
ASTM International
,
Philadelphia, PA
, July
1919
.
2.
ASTM C150/C150M-12
:
Standard Specification for Portland Cement
,
Annual Book of ASTM Standards
,
ASTM International
,
West Conshohocken, PA
,
2013
.
3.
ASTM C114-47
:
Standard Methods of Chemical Analysis of Portland Cement
,
Annual Book of ASTM Standards
,
ASTM International
,
West Conshohocken, PA
,
1949
.
4.
ASTM C114
:
Standard Test Method for Chemical Analysis of Hydraulic Cement
,
Annual Book of ASTM Standards
,
ASTM International
,
West Conshohocken, PA
,
2012
.
5.
Forrester
,
J.A.
,
Lees
,
T.P.
, and
Moore
,
A.E.
, “
The Precision of Standard Cement Analysis and its Effect on the Calculated Compound Composition
,”
SCI Monograph No. 18, The Analysis of Calcareous Materials
,
Society of Chemical Industry
,
London
,
1964
, pp.
447
451
.
6.
Midgley
,
H.G.
, “
Compound Calculation in the Phases in Portland Cement Clinker
,”
Cem. Technol.
, Vol.
1
, No.
3
,
1970
, pp.
1
5
.
7.
Harrisson
,
A.M.
,
Taylor
,
H.F. W.
, and
Winter
,
N.B.
, “
Electron-Optical Analysis of the Phases in a Portland Cement Clinker, With Some Observations on the Calculation of Quantitative Phase Composition
,”
Cem. Conc. Res.
, Vol.
15
, No.
5
,
1985
, pp.
775
780
. https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(85)90142-5
8.
Aldridge
,
L.P.
and
Eardley
,
R.P.
, “
Effects of Analytical Errors on the Bogue Calculation of Compound Composition
,”
Cem. Technol.
, Vol.
4
,
1973
, pp.
177
182
.
9.
Aldridge
,
L.P.
, “
Errors in the Analysis of Cement
,”
Cem. Technol.
, Vol.
7
,
1976
, pp.
8
11
.
10.
Aldridge
,
L.P.
, “
International Cement Analysis Study. Part 4: Comparison of Results
,”
Report No. C.D. 2267
,
Chemistry Division
,
New Zealand
,978.
11.
Stutzman
,
P.E.
and
Lane
,
D.S.
, “
Effects of Analytical Precision on Bogue Calculations of Potential Portland Cement Composition
,”
J. ASTM Int.
, Vol.
7
, No.
6
,
2010
,102697.
12.
BS EN 196-2
:
Methods of Testing Cement – Part 2: Chemical Analysis of Cement
,
British Standards Institute
,
London
,
2012
.
13.
NCHRP 139
,
2009
, “
Precision Estimates for AASHTO Test Method T 105, Determined Using CCRL Proficiency Sample Data
,” NCHRP Project 09-26A,http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w139.pdf(Last accessed, 13 Feb,
2014
).
14.
Haupt
,
R.
, Personal Communication.
15.
ASTM E691-14
:
Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Determine the Precision of a Test Method
,
Annual Book of ASTM Standards
,
ASTM International
,
West Conshohocken, PA
,
2014
.
16.
ASTM E177-14
:
Standard Practice for Use of the Terms Precision and Bias in ASTM Test Methods
,
Annual Book of ASTM Standards
,
ASTM International
,
West Conshohocken, PA
,
2014
.
17.
Hahn
,
G.J.
and
Meeker
,
W.Q.
,
Statistical Intervals: A Guide for Practitioners
,
John Wiley and Sons
,
New York
,
1991
.
18.
Stutzman
,
P.
and
Heckert
,
A.
, “
Performance Criteria for an ASTM XRF Standard Test Method for Hydraulic Cements: Inter-laboratory Study on Cements A and B
,”
NIST Technical Note 1816
,
NIST
,
Gaithersburg, MD
,
2013
.
19.
Stutzman
,
P.
and
Heckert
,
A.
, “
Performance Criteria for an ASTM XRF Standard Test Method for Chemical Analysis of Hydraulic Cements: Inter-laboratory Study on Cements E and F
,”
NIST Technical Note 1815
,
NIST
,
Gaithersburg, MD
,
2013
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.