Table 1. Linear Attenuation Coefficients
(µ) (for Cu K radiation)
Table 2. RM 2686 mass fraction (percent) by QXRD, optical data (OM), and round robin data (RR) following ASTM C 1356
[2]. QXRD analysis of nine vials (1-9) with two splits per vial (a, b), with each split analyzed in duplicate (1, 2).
Table 3. RM 2687 mass fraction (percent) by QXRD, optical data (OM), and round robin data
(RR)
following ASTM C 1356 [2]. QXRD analysis of nine vials (1-9) with
two splits per vial (a, b), with each split analyzed in duplicate (1, 2).
Table 4. RM 2688 mass fraction (percent) by QXRD, optical data (OM), and round robin data
(RR)
following ASTM C 1356 [2]. QXRD analysis of nine vials (1-9) with two splits per vial (a, b),
with each split analyzed in duplicate (1, 2).
Table 5. RM Clinker QXRD Summary: 95 % Confidence Limits for the Mean (Mass
Percent).
Table 6. Combined QXRD / Optical Analyses Mean and 95 % Uncertainty Interval.
List of Figures
Figure 1: RM 8486 polished section prepared using a 30 s HF vapor etch with a field width
of 260 µm (upper) and 100 µm (lower image).
network, and periclase as gray, equant crystals in the matrix.
Figure 2: RM 8487 polished section prepared using a 30 s HF vapor etch with a field width
of 260 µm (upper) and 100 µm (lower image).
Figure 3: RM 8488 polished section prepared using a 30 s HF vapor etch with a field width of 260 µm (upper) and 100 µm (lower image).
Figure 4: Crystal structure database entry for belite (b -form).
Figure 5: True versus calculated mass fraction values for a laboratory-prepared mixture of
clinker phases showing both raw data (diamonds) and data corrected for microabsorption
(circles) using the Brindley microabsorption correction and a median particle size of 1 µm.
Figure 6: Refined data for sample 1a showing raw, best-fit, and difference curves. The tic
marks show peak positions for (bottom up) alite, belite (b
and a
forms), ferrite, cubic and orthorhombic aluminates, and periclase.
Figure 7: A straight normal probability
plot of the errors indicates their distribution is well approximated by a Gaussian.
Figure 8: Backscattered electron SEM images of RM 8486 at low (a) and high (b) magnifications show the heterogeneous texture and intermediate crystal size with alite (A), belite (B), ferrite (F), aluminate (AL), periclase (M), and pores (P).
Figure 9: Box plot representation for 8486 alite phase estimates by QXRD,
optical microscopy (OM), and round robin (RR).
Figure 14: SEM backscattered electron image of the interstitial phase of RM 8487 shows the
inter-mixing of ferrite (F, bright phase) and aluminate (AL, dark) not observable by optical
microscopy. Other phases shown here are alite (A), and porosity (P).
Figure 20: SEM backscattered electron image of RM 8488 showing alite (A), belite (B),
aluminate (AL), ferrite (F), and porosity (P).
Figure 21: SEM backscattered electron image of a finer-grained interstitial phase texture in some fragments of RM 8488, which will be more difficult to point count in the microscope.
radiation)