focusing on long-term durability and performance for concrete … · 2018. 7. 29. · (like in astm...

Post on 30-Jul-2021

2 Views

Category:

Documents

0 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

TRANSCRIPT

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 1 of 40

Jason Weiss, Edwards Distinguished Professor, Oregon State University

Focusing on Long-TermDurability and Performance

For Concrete Pavement

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 2 of 40

Concrete Pavements of the Future

• Many concrete pavements are long-lasting; however some come out of service early due to concerns of durability

• PEM/PBS/PRS – Emphasize Performance• Can we test materials early to determine

if they will be durable for decades• Can we re-envision mixture proportioning for durability• Working on a long-term road map to get us there… several

steps in the process but we are already on the way

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 3 of 40

Focus on Durability

TARGET: ImproveLong-Term Durability

• Freeze-Thaw• Salt Damage• Chloride Ingress• ASR

• Shrinkage & Cracking

Today we will discuss the Formation Factor (a.k.a. F Factor)

Very simple, Very powerful, Very practice ready

This is work done prior to the current pooled fund and led to a large portion of AASHTO PP-84 Weiss et al. 2015

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 4 of 40

Four Step ApproachToward Performance

Assess Performance w/ Standard

Tests

Tests should be:• Easy to

perform• Economical• Repeatable

Convert Test Results to

Fundamental Properties

Relate Properties w/

ExposureConditions

EstablishPerformanceGrade and Measure

Example:• Measure ρ• Account for

Pore Solution• Determine

F- Factor

Set Performance Limits and Use Tests to Measure to Insure That You Received What you Specified

Use Exposure, Material Factors (e.g., Binding), and Models to Estimate Service Life Af

ter B

arde

et a

l. 20

07

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 5 of 40

We need to Test Correctly• Working on several

videos that folks here may find of use

• They will be directly linked from the NCC web page to here

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 6 of 40

Typical Videos

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 7 of 40

Jason Weiss, Edwards Distinguished Professor, Oregon State University

Determining the Formation Factor Using the Bucket Test

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 8 of 40

Four Step ApproachToward Performance

Assess Performance w/ Standard

Tests

Tests should be:• Easy to

perform• Economical• Repeatable

Convert Test Results to

Fundamental Properties

Relate Properties w/

ExposureConditions

EstablishPerformanceGrade and Measure

Example:• Measure ρ• Account for

Pore Solution• Determine

F- Factor

Set Performance Limits and Use Tests to Measure to Insure That You Received What you Specified

Use Exposure, Material Factors (e.g., Binding), and Models to Estimate Service Life Af

ter B

arde

et a

l. 20

07

• Need a test that is simple to perform in the field

• Resistivity is a great field test; however there are factors of geometry, temperature, saturation, and pore solution (leaching, chemistry) that need to be ‘standardized’

• Need a test that ‘can be transformed ‘to a property

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 9 of 40

R2D2

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 10 of 40

R2S2

• 5 Gal Bucket• Reliable • Robust • Simple • Safe

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 11 of 40

Current State • There are ‘three geometries’ frequently used• With proper geometry conditioning, all are similar

• There are two AASHTO test standards; while good a large issue in repeatability is related to conditioning

• Temperature, Moisture, Leaching, Degree of Saturation

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 12 of 40

Recommended Tests

• Option 1 - “The Bucket Test”• Option 2 - Sealed Samples • Option 3 – Vacuum Saturation• Option 4 – Moist Curing Room

• We will start by describing how to perform the tests using simplified procedures

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 13 of 40

Option 1 “Bucket Test”

• Begin with a 5 gallon bucket

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 14 of 40

Option 1 “Bucket Test”

• Begin with a 5 gallon bucket • Place a specific volume of fluid into the bucket (the

solution to sample ratio is important, placea line on the bucket)

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 15 of 40

Option 1 “Bucket Test”

• Begin with a 5 gallon bucket • Place a specific volume of fluid into the bucket (the

solution to sample ratio is important, placea line on the bucket)

• Place a specified “CH-salt” into the solution(some adjust to the mixture, we suggestselecting a standard value)

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 16 of 40

Option 1 “Bucket Test”

• Begin with a 5 gallon bucket • Place a specific volume of fluid into the bucket (the

solution to sample ratio is important, placea line on the bucket)

• Place a specified “CH-salt” into the solution(some adjust to the mixture, we suggestselecting a standard value)

• Place samples into the solution to allowthe solution to reach the entire sample

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 17 of 40

Option 1 “Bucket Test”

• Mass change and resistivity are shown

• Similar to absorption (like in ASTM C1585); however the time scale varies due to:– 1-sided vs immersion– sample geometry

• Approx. 5 vs. 1 days0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Mas

s cha

nge

(g)

Square root of time (s0.5)

w/c=0.50, M4

Nick Point

0

30

60

90

120

150

Elec

trica

l res

istiv

ity (Ω

⋅m)

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 18 of 40

Option 1 “Bucket Test”

• At select ages remove sample from the bucket, towel/ wash off the surface and perform either the surface resistivity test or the uniaxial bulk resistivity test

• After 5 days in solutionthe sample is assumed tobe in matrix saturation

• This can provide a measureof ρmeasured or Fmatrix

• Conditioning solution ρsolution is known

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 19 of 40

Option 2 - Sealed

• Maintain a sealed sample (this can be done in a sealed sample or by placing the sample in double bags)

• The advantages of this approach:– Provides continual measure– Provides an “easy” test condition

• The disadvantages of this approach:– Will require a moisture correction– Requires some sort of ability to make it

clear as to whether the sample has dried

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 20 of 40

Option 3 – Vacuum Sat.

• This is not being recommended QC/QA use:• The advantages of this approach are:

– This will match most closely to ASTM C1202• The disadvantages of this approach are:

– time consuming– difficult to do on 4x8 in samples– It does not correlate to a field condition

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 21 of 40

Option 4 – Moist Room

• This is not being recommended.

• The advantages of this approach are:

• The disadvantages of this approach are:– Leaching – Not being saturated– Not a ‘easily achieved’ robust state

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 22 of 40

Scientific Principles

Historically the RCPT has been based on a vacuum saturated sample but is this the right way

Pro’s• State that many people can

get to repeatedly

Con’s• Requires Vacuum• Is this a “state in practice”?

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 23 of 40

Saturated, S

Saturated Matrix, SM

Saturation: S vs SMatrix• This will seem very academic and not very

important however it is a crucial issue • This applies both to testing and application• Vacuum saturation

fills all voids: gel, capillary, and air

• “Bucket Test” or Absorption fill in matrix voids: gel andcapillary (i.e., not air) 0 2 4 6 8

5

10

15

20

Aggregate pores

Air voids

Chemical shrinkage

Capillary pores

Gel pores

Poro

sity

Air content (%)

(b) w/c=0.45 w/c=0.45 (575)

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 24 of 40

Porosity: Measured versus Theoretical• We have compared numerous mixtures (32 shown

here) but many more have been tested• Theory matches practice well

0 2 4 6 8

5

10

15

20

Aggregate pores

Air voids

Chemical shrinkage

Capillary pores

Poro

sity

Air content (%)

(a) w/c=0.40 w/c=0.40 (575)

Gel pores

0 2 4 6 8

5

10

15

20

Aggregate pores

Air voids

Chemical shrinkage

Capillary pores

Gel pores

Poro

sity

Air content (%)

(b) w/c=0.45 w/c=0.45 (575)

0 2 4 6 8

5

10

15

20Aggregate pores

Poro

sity

Air content (%)

(c) w/c=0.50 w/c=0.50 (575)

Gel pores

Capillary pores

Chemical shrinkage

Air voids

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 25 of 40

0 2 4 6 80

100

200

300

400

R2=0.93 R2=0.94

w/c=0.40 w/c=0.45 w/c=0.50

Form

atio

n fa

ctor

Air content (%)

R2=0.96

(a)

Saturated F Factor(Air is Varied – OK PFS)

0 2 4 6 80

100

200

300

400

R2=0.83

R2=0.79

w/c=0.40 (575) w/c=0.45 (575) w/c=0.50 (575)

Form

atio

n fa

ctor

Air content (%)

R2=0.94

(b)

Qiao et al. submitted

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 26 of 40

Resistivity (F Factor) For Matrix Saturation (Bucket)

0 2 4 6 80

20

40

60

80

100

w/c=0.40 w/c=0.45 w/c=0.50

Resis

tivity

at N

ick

Poin

t (Ω⋅m

)

Air content (%)

(a)

0 2 4 6 80

20

40

60

80

100

w/c=0.40 (575) w/c=0.45 (575) w/c=0.50 (575)

Res

istiv

ity a

t Nic

k Po

int (Ω⋅m

)Air content (%)

(b)

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 27 of 40

F Factor For Matrix Saturation (Bucket)

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 28 of 40

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 29 of 40

What happens in the Bucket

Ionic solution in thebucket matches the pores

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 30 of 40

Sorption Based Model

Luce

ro e

t al.

2015

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 31 of 40

Sorption Based Model

Luce

ro e

t al.

2015

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 32 of 40

Saturation vs. Air

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 33 of 40

Confirming the Pores that Fill in the Bucket

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

w/c=0.40 w/c=0.45 w/c=0.50 w/c=0.40 (575) w/c=0.45 (575) w/c=0.50 (575)

Mea

sure

SN

K (b

ucke

t tes

ts)

Theoretical SNK (mixture proportion)

(a)

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.00.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

-20% variation

w/c=0.40 w/c=0.45 w/c=0.50 w/c=0.40 (575) w/c=0.45 (575) w/c=0.50 (575)

ρ SA

T/ρ N

K

SNK

+20% variation

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 34 of 40

F Factor Defined• Inverse of the product of porosity and connectivity.

𝐹𝐹 =1∅𝛽𝛽

∅ = porosity

𝛽𝛽 = connectivity

• The porosity in the matrix is the same if the w/cm is the

same, (gel, capillary and CS pores same; air varies)

𝐹𝐹 =𝜌𝜌

𝜌𝜌𝑜𝑜

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 35 of 40

Connectivity

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 36 of 40

Computation of the Pore Solution

• Assume a value (0.04-0.12 Ω-m) (Spragg 2017)• Estimate value from mill cert (NIST) (Bentz 2007)• Estimate value from GEMS (Azad et al. 2018) • Use of Sensors (Rajabiopour et al. 2007)• Pore solution expression (Barneyback/Diamond 1981)Direct measurements: resistance meterChemical analysis:

o Inductively coupled plasma (ICP)oAtomic absorption (AA)o Ion chromatography (IC)oX-ray Fluorescence (XRF)

Slag

𝐹𝐹 =𝜌𝜌𝑏𝑏𝜌𝜌𝑜𝑜

Are estimates perfect no, are thebetter than nothing (RCPT) yes

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 37 of 40

F Factor Defined• Inverse of the product of porosity and connectivity.

𝐹𝐹 =1∅𝛽𝛽

∅ = porosity

𝛽𝛽 = connectivity

• The porosity in the matrix is the same if the w/cm is the

same, (gel, capillary and CS pores same; air varies)

• The bucket helps define the pore solution

𝐹𝐹 =𝜌𝜌

𝜌𝜌𝑜𝑜

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 38 of 40

Theory of Everything

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 39 of 40

Theory of Everything

Use the F Factor to Obtain Other Transport

Properties

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 40 of 40

F Factor and RCPT

• More fundamentally however the F-Factor can be related with the pore solution conductivity and RCPT

𝑄𝑄 = 𝑉𝑉𝐴𝐴𝐿𝐿𝑡𝑡

1𝜌𝜌0

1𝐹𝐹

Q= 60𝑉𝑉 8107𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2

50.8𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚21,600 𝑠𝑠 1

𝜌𝜌𝑜𝑜

1𝐹𝐹

Q= 206,830 𝑉𝑉 𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠𝜌𝜌𝑜𝑜

1𝐹𝐹 W

eiss

et a

l. 20

16

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 41 of 40

F Factor and DApparent

• Frequent criticism of F-Factor - it doesn’t include binding

• While this is true (neither does any electrical measure), it can be shown that F Factor can easily be combined with a binding isotherm to predict performance.

• Nernst Plank equation:

• Freundlich binding: 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑏𝑏 = 𝛼𝛼 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝛽𝛽

(Qiao et al. submitted)

𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕𝑡𝑡

𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖 + 𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖𝑏𝑏 = −div −𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖0

𝐹𝐹 grad𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖 + 𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖grad ln 𝛾𝛾𝑖𝑖 +𝑧𝑧𝑖𝑖𝐹𝐹𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖

grad𝜓𝜓

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 42 of 40

Chloride Diffusion

• Here we see that combining the F-Factor and binding is very powerful .

• This does a good job at predicting chloride ingress.

• This is much faster than ASTM 1556.

• Further binding is a qualification test and F is a QC/QA test. (Qiao et al. submitted)

An example where datafrom 10 or so other states have also been collected, we wouldwelcome sharing method with others who want to try

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 43 of 40

F Factor and Absorption• Related to other transport properties directly.• Mass of absorbed water (M) is related to (F-0.5)• Derived from first principles

𝑀𝑀 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐴𝐴𝜌𝜌𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖2

𝜀𝜀𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝜇𝜇

1𝐹𝐹

𝑡𝑡

Mor

adllo

et a

l. su

bmitt

ed

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 44 of 40

Conclusions

Why was this a good idea, I don’t know

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 45 of 40

Conclusions

• Don’t Duck It – Get a Bucket

• Pores of the Matrix Are Great – They Saturate

• Air Voids are Vast – But Remain Full of Gas

• Bucket Solution is Great – The Ions Equilibrate

• F Factor is the Best – It can Replace Other Tests

National Concrete Consortium April 2018– jason.weiss@oregonstate.edu © Slide 46 of 40

Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body.

Winston Churchill

top related