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.


2/46

Acknowledgements

Principal Investigators

Prof. Jeff Roesler

Prof. David Lange

Research Students

Cristian GaedickeVictor Cervantes


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


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


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


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


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


8/46

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


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


coarse aggregate on

shrinkage


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


coarse aggregate on fracture

properties


11/46

P-501 Accomplishments

No fly ash replacement ratio

ASTM C157


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


13/46

ASTM C 1157


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


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


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)


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


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.


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


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


21/46

Concrete Slab Behavior

Curling stresses

temperature

moisture

Joint Opening

Load transfer

Dowel vs. no dowel


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


23/46

Hygro-thermal Strain (2)

Kelvin-Laplace equation

waterofmemolar volu:'

degree;Kelvininretemperatu:

constant;gasuniversal:

where

'

)RHln(

T

R

RT

p


24/46

Slab-base friction

f

L: joint spacing

E

Lf

4

2

Expansion caused by friction (after K.P. George)


25/46

Joint opening ()

taken."-"otherwise,

taken;""n,contractioi.e.,0when

HTT

fcurl

HTTL


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


27/46

Joint Opening Measurement


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


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


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


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


32/46

Predicted joint opening(1)


33/46

Predicted joint opening(2)


34/46

Future Work

Concrete Pavement / Material


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


36/46

PCC slab

Wind

Solar radiation

ConvectionReflected radiation

BAM

ASB

SubgradeConduction

Conduction

Surface Energy Balance


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


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


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?


40/46


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


42/46

Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag

GGBFS

d i


43/46

Introduction

By product of the steel industry

Produced in blast furnaces

Highly cementitious

Hydrates similarly to Portland cement

P d i


44/46

Production

Iron blast furnace

slag is quenched

it is then ground to a fine

power

P d C


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


46/46

Slag Activity Index

Higher grade GGBFS can be used in larger

percentages

Improves early and ultimate performance

Documents

Roesler Omp Pcc Mix Uiuc 9-21-06