Download - Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
1/46
Concrete (PCC) Mixture Designsfor OHare Modernization Program
Principal InvestigatorsProf. Jeff Roesler
Prof. David Lange
PROJECT GOALInvestigate cost-effective concrete properties and pavementdesign features required to achieve long-term rigid
pavement performance at Chicago OHare International.
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
2/46
Acknowledgements
Principal Investigators
Prof. Jeff Roesler
Prof. David Lange
Research Students
Cristian GaedickeVictor Cervantes
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
3/46
Former OMP Research Students
Sal VillalobosCTL, Inc. (Chicago area)
Civil engineer
Robert RoddenAmerican Concrete
Pavement Association (Chicago area)
Technical director
Zach GrasleyTexas A&M
Materials professor
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
4/46
Project Objectives
Develop concrete material constituents and
proportions for airfield concrete mixesStrength
volume stability
fracture properties
Develop / improve models to predict concretematerial behavior
Crack width and shrinkage
Evaluate material properties and structural designinteractions
joint type & joint spacing (curling and load transfer)
Saw-cut timing
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
5/46
FY2005-06 Accomplishments
Tech Notes (TN) -TN2: PCC Mix Design
TN3: Fiber Reinforced Concrete for Airfield RigidPavements
TN4: Feasibility of Shrinkage Reducing Admixtures forConcrete Runway Pavements
TN11: Measurement of Water Content in FreshConcrete Using the Microwave Method
TN12: Guiding Principles for the Optimization of the
OMP PCC Mix DesignTN15: Evaluation, testing and comparison betweencrushed manufactured sand and natural sand
TN16: Concrete Mix Design Specification Evaluation
TN17: PCC Mix Design Phase 1
www.cee.uiuc.edu/research/ceat
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
6/46
FY2006 Accomplishments
Tech Notes (TN) -TN21: An Overview of Ultra-Thin Whitetopping
Technology
TN23: Effect of Large Maximum Size Coarse Aggregate
on Strength, Fracture and Shrinkage Properties ofConcrete
TN24: Concrete Saw-Cut Timing Model
TNXX: Recycled Concrete Aggregate Concrete (80%)
TNYY: Functionally Layered Concrete Pavements (70%)
TNZZ: Properties of concrete containing GGBFS
TNAA: Effects of Concrete Materials and Geometry on
Slab Curling (40%)
www.cee.uiuc.edu/research/ceat
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
7/46
Presentation Overview
2006 TopicsTN & Brown BagLarge-sized coarse aggregate mixtures
Slab Curlingtheoretical analysis
Saw-cut timing modelRecycled Concrete Aggregate
P-501 Accomplishments
P-501 Remaining ItemsField Demo Project
Future Work
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
8/46
Phase II Mix Summary
Mixture ID 688.38ST 688.38 571.44 555.44fsp28 (psi) 570 454 524 490
MOR28 (psi) 802 639 794 663
E28(ksi) 3,752 3,438 3,958 4,209
Mixture ID 688.38ST 688.38 571.44 555.44
Coarse Aggregate Size (in) 0.75 1.5 1.5 1.5Coarse Aggregate (lb/yd
3) 1850 1842 1938 1942
Fine Aggregate (lb/yd3) 1103 1083 1140 1142
Water (lb/yd3) 262 261 251 244
Cement (lb/yd3) 588 588 571 455
Fly ash (lb/yd3) 100 100 0 100
Air (oz/yd3) 12.7 19.4 16.1 15.6Slump (in.) 7.5 6.25 2.25 8.0
Air Content (%) 6.5 8 6.5 3.7
Unit Weight (lb/ft3) 145.1 141.8 146.2 150.2
Larger-size coarse aggregate
Effect of larger-size
coarse aggregate on
strength
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
9/46
Drying ShrinkagePhase II
Total Shrinkage vs. Age
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Concrete Age (days)
Shrinkage(microstrain)
688.38 st
688.38
571.44
555.44
\
Mixture ID 688.38 st 688.38 571.44 555.44
sh3 (microstrain) 48 118 139 52sh7 (microstrain) 193 233 250 158sh14 (microstrain) 292 338 320 273
sh28 (microstrain) 417 405 380 335
Effect of larger-size
coarse aggregate on
shrinkage
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
10/46
Fracture Energy Results-Phase II
Age = 28-days
Load vs. CMOD curves for Wedge Splitting Samples
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
CMOD(mm)
Fv(N)
688.38st
688.38
555.44
Mixture ID . st . . .
GF (Nm) 156 166 N/A 161
Effect of larger-size
coarse aggregate on fracture
properties
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
11/46
P-501 Accomplishments
No fly ash replacement ratio
ASTM C157
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
12/46
P-501 Remaining Issues
Nominal vs. Maximum Size Aggregate
Combined Gradation
ASTM C1157blended cements
Performance spec
Air content5.5% for 1.5inch MSA
Slag
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
13/46
ASTM C 1157
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
14/46
Combined Gradation
Sieve # Sieve size (mm) 1" Aggregate 1.5" Aggregate FA 1" + FA 1.5" + FA
1.5" 40 100 100 100 100 1001" 25 100 41 100 100 63
3/4" 20 67 8 100 79 42
1/2" 12.5 12 1 100 45 38
3/8" 10 3 0 100 39 37
#4 5 0 0 99 37 37
#8 2.5 0 0 91 34 34
#16 1.25 0 0 76 28 28
#30 0.630 0 0 53 20 20#50 0.315 0 0 16 6 6
#100 0.160 0 0 1 0 0
WF = Combined aggregate finer than No. 8 (%): 34 34
CF = coarse agg retained 3/8" / all retained No.8 (%) 92.0 94.8
OMP Combined gradationsOriginal aggregates
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
15/46
Saw-Cut Timing and Depth
Process
FRACTUREPROPERTIES
Tensile strength of the slab at 12 hours
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50a
o/d
NominalstrengthMPa)
688.38
688.38ST
Wedge Split Test FEM ModelSaw Cut Depth
Model
Concrete Mix
Aggregate size
Cementitious content
Crack Propagates
S f N t h D th
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
16/46
Summary of Notch Depth
Requirements
AGE(hrs)Slab depth (m) 0.19 0.38 0.19 0.38 0.19 0.38 0.19 0.38
555.44 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.11 0.06 0.47 0.21
555.44st 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.46 0.22
688.38 0.05 0.02 0.16 0.06 0.38 0.14 0.71 0.49
688.38st 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.05 0.21 0.09 0.56 0.37
12
Saw Cut Depth (a0/d)
6 8 10
Saw Cut Depth vs Age
(Slab depth: 190 mm)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
6 8 10 12Age (hrs)
SawC
utDep
555.44
555.44st
688.38
688.38st
Saw Cut Depth vs Age
(Slab depth: 380 mm)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
6 8 10 12Age (hrs)
SawC
utDep
555.44
555.44st688.38
688.38st
R l d C A (RCA)
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
17/46
Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA)
Objectives
Determine the fracture properties of concretevirgin and recycled coarse aggregate
w/ and w/o structural fibers
Effects of concrete drying shrinkage with
recycled coarse aggregate
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
18/46
ResultsVirgin vs RCA
CMOD vs Load Curve Comparison
No FRC
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
CMOD (mm )
Load(kN)
Virgin Agg.
Recycled Coarse Agg
Similar peak loads
Virgin GF is 1.6 times
larger than RCA GF
E KIc GF
(GPa) (MPa m1/2 Nm
Beam 1 27.19 1.06 0.0182 63.16Beam 2 24.74 1.18 0.0195 82.81
Ave. 25.96 1.12 0.0189 72.98
Beam 1 30.12 1.13 0.0196 40.01
Beam 2 25.84 1.06 0.0186 49.35
Ave. 27.98 1.09 0.0191 44.68
CTODc(mm)
Virgin
Agg.
Recycled
Coarse
Agg.
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
19/46
ResultsVirgin FRC vs RCA FRC
Similar peak loads
Similar softening curves
Similar GF
CMOD vs Load Curve Comparison
FRC
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
CMOD (mm)
Load
(kN)
Virgin Agg.
Recycled Coarse Agg
E KIc GF
(GPa) (MPa m1/2 NmBeam 1 26.81 1.35 0.0262 254.43
Beam 2 25.25 1.24 0.0292 217.48
Ave. 26.03 1.30 0.0277 235.95
Beam 1 28.36 1.12 0.0193 278.48
Beam 2 27.96 1.13 0.0192 164.62
Ave. 28.16 1.12 0.0192 221.55
CTODc
(mm)Virgin
Agg.
FRC
RCA
FRC
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
20/46
RCA Shrinkage
TOTAL SHRINKAGE
75x75x285 mm specimen
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Concrete Age (days)
Aver
ageDryShrinkage
(microstrain)
Virgin FRC
Virgin
RCA-FRC
RCA
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
21/46
Concrete Slab Behavior
Curling stresses
temperature
moisture
Joint Opening
Load transfer
Dowel vs. no dowel
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
22/46
Hygro-thermal Strain (1)
Quantify the drying shrinkage due to RH change Micro-mechanical model: modified Mackenzies
formula
phasesolidand
bodyporousfor themodulusbulk:,
98.0175.01factor,saturation:
pressurefluidpore:
where
11
3
3
s
s
HT
KK
RHSS
P
KK
PS
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
23/46
Hygro-thermal Strain (2)
Kelvin-Laplace equation
waterofmemolar volu:'
degree;Kelvininretemperatu:
constant;gasuniversal:
where
'
)RHln(
T
R
RT
p
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
24/46
Slab-base friction
f
L: joint spacing
E
Lf
4
2
Expansion caused by friction (after K.P. George)
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
25/46
Joint opening ()
taken."-"otherwise,
taken;""n,contractioi.e.,0when
HTT
fcurl
HTTL
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
26/46
Field Validation
Field data: three concrete slabs were cast on
06/22/06 at ATREL
Slab size: 15x12x10, BAM Temp., RH measured @ surface, 1,3,5,7
and 9 at 15-min. interval
Two LVDTs installed in each joint to measure
joint opening
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
27/46
Joint Opening Measurement
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
28/46
Two week joint opening
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
6/22 6/24 6/26 6/28 6/30 7/2 7/4 7/6 7/8
DATE
JOINT-OPENING(
in)
A
B
C
D
ACBD
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
29/46
Two month joint opening
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
6/12 6/22 7/2 7/12 7/22 8/1 8/11 8/21 8/31 9/10 9/20
DATE
JOINT-OPENIN
G(
in)
AB
C
D
AC
BD
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
30/46
Concrete Free Shrinkage
SHRINKAGE 688.38 ST MIX
0
200
400
600
800
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28Age (days)
Shrinka
ge(mm/mm)
Total shrinkage - Lab Mix
Total shrinkage - Field Mix
Autogrenous shrinkage - Field Mix
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
31/46
Material inputs
Setting temp. T= 50C (122F)
=5.75 x 10-6/F (10.35 x 10-6/C)
K=2.12 x 106psi
Ks=3.77 x 106psi
E=4.03 x 106psi
Unit weight =149 pcf
Friction coeff. = 2.5
Data set: 0:08a.m. on 07/01/0612:38p.m. on
07/13/06 at 15-min. interval
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
32/46
Predicted joint opening(1)
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
33/46
Predicted joint opening(2)
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
34/46
Future Work
Concrete Pavement / Material
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
35/46
Concrete Pavement / Material
Interaction
Hygro-thermal effects on slab behaviorCurling & joint opening (slab sizes)
Dowel
Construction practices (curing, temp, mix components)
Early & long age
Material effects (e.g.)
Combined gradation*
Slag
High early strength/stiffness
FRC
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
36/46
PCC slab
Wind
Solar radiation
ConvectionReflected radiation
BAM
ASB
SubgradeConduction
Conduction
Surface Energy Balance
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
37/46
N-layer Heat Transfer Model
Governing PDE
(J/kg/C)capacityheatspecific:c
)(kg/mdensityconcrete:
hr)/(J/mhydrationofheat:Qhr)/(mydiffusivitthermal:
where
1
p
3
2
h
2
2
2
2
2
i
p
hiii
i
i
c
Q
z
T
r
T
rr
T
t
T
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer n
1111 ,,, Th
2222 ,,, Th
nnn T,,
Z
rB.C.s
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
38/46
QUESTIONS
www.cee.uiuc.edu\research\ceat
Thanks!
http://www.cee.uiuc.edu/research/ceathttp://www.cee.uiuc.edu/research/ceathttp://www.cee.uiuc.edu/research/ceathttp://www.cee.uiuc.edu/research/ceathttp://www.cee.uiuc.edu/research/ceathttp://www.cee.uiuc.edu/research/ceat -
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
39/46
Curling Questions
How does shrinkage effect slab size?What are the combined effect of
moisture/temperature profile?
What is the role concrete creep?How do other concrete materials behave
FRC & SRA?
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
40/46
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
41/46
Field vs Lab
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Elapsed Time (days)
InternalRH(%)
Surface - 1
Surface - 2
1/2" - 1
1/2" - 2
1"
5"
7"
11" - 1
11" -2
14" - 114" - 2
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Elapsed Time (days)
InternalRH(%
)
0"
1/2"
1"
3"
7"
11"
14"
Field
Lab
-7.5
-6
-4.5
-3
-1.5
0
1.5
3
4.5
6
7.5
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
RH (%)
LocationinSlab(in)
Actual RH
Second Order
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
42/46
Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
GGBFS
d i
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
43/46
Introduction
By product of the steel industry
Produced in blast furnaces
Highly cementitious
Hydrates similarly to Portland cement
P d i
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
44/46
Production
Iron blast furnace
slag is quenched
it is then ground to a fine
power
P d C
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
45/46
Pros and Cons
Improves workability
Lower water demand
Higher paste volume
Higher strength potential
Using 120 grade
Longer setting time
Decreased permeabilityPerforms well in freezethaw tests
Reduces the effects of ASR
Reduced heat of hydration*
More susceptible to drying
shrinkage
Slower strength gain*
Pros Cons
Sl A i i I d
-
8/12/2019 Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06
46/46
Slag Activity Index
Higher grade GGBFS can be used in larger
percentages
Improves early and ultimate performance