Pond Ash Concereet

Download Pond Ash Concereet

Post on 16-Nov-2014

343 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<p>1 CENTER FOR INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING STUDIES</p> <p>Optimization of HPC for Missouri Bridge Structures By Dr. John J. Myers Mahmut Ekenel And Brian Sides</p> <p>UTCR79</p> <p>University Transportation Center Program at The University of Missouri-Rolla</p> <p>2</p> <p>DisclaimerThe contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s), who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program and the Center for Infrastructure Engineering Studies UTC program at the University of Missouri - Rolla, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government and Center for Infrastructure Engineering Studies assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.</p> <p>3Technical Report Documentation Page1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.</p> <p>UTC R794. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date</p> <p>Optimization of HPC for Missouri Bridge Structures</p> <p>June 20036. Performing Organization Code</p> <p>7. Author/s</p> <p>8. Performing Organization Report No.</p> <p>Dr. John J. Myers, Mahmut Ekenel, and Brian Sides</p> <p>RG001232 OT07910. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)</p> <p>9. Performing Organization Name and Address</p> <p>Center for Infrastructure Engineering Studies/UTC program University of Missouri - Rolla 223 Engineering Research Lab Rolla, MO 6540912. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address</p> <p>11. Contract or Grant No.</p> <p>DTRS98-G-0021</p> <p>13. Type of Report and Period Covered</p> <p>U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590-000115. Supplementary Notes</p> <p>Final14. Sponsoring Agency Code</p> <p>16. Abstract</p> <p>Commercially available materials will be used throughout this investigation for laboratory produced concrete. Optimization of mix proportions will be accomplished through a trial batching series investigating the interaction of various materials in the production of HPC. The trial series will involve mix designs with the following upper and lower bound limits: w/cm ratio of 0.2 to 0.45 by wt., coarse aggregate content 36 to 44 % by wt., and fine aggregate content 25 to 40 % by wt. Performance will focus on durability enhancement and mechanical property performance such as strength-gain and elastic modulus.17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement</p> <p>High performance concrete, high-strength concrete, quality assurances, quality control, mix proportioning.</p> <p>No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.20. Security Classification (of this page) 21. No. Of Pages 22. Price</p> <p>19. Security Classification (of this report)</p> <p>unclassifiedForm DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)</p> <p>unclassified</p> <p>4</p> <p>OPTIMIZATION &amp; DURABILITY OF HIGH STRENGTH / HIGH PERFORMANCE CONCRETE PRODUCED USING LOCALLY AVAILABLE MATERIALS IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI A study was undertaken on the optimization of high strength (HSC) and high performance concrete (HPC) mixtures using locally available materials obtained in the State of Missouri. Thirty-six (36) different mixtures were produced that were categorized as HSC; eighteen (18) mixtures were categorized as HPC. 30% fly ash replacement by cement weight was utilized in both the HSC and HPC mixtures, and Grade 100 ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS) was also substituted by 5% of the cement in some of the mixtures. Mineral admixtures were expected to reduce the concrete material costs, enhance durability, increase recycling of these materials and reduce CO2 production. The HSC mixtures included locally available Limestone coarse aggregate. Three different coarse aggregate sources in Missouri were used in the HPC mixtures including a Limestone, Trap Rock, and River Gravel. Laboratory test results concluded that mixtures of HSC and HPC without cement replacement displayed higher strength development at the end of 56-day compared to the mixtures in which Class F fly ash and Class F fly ashGGBFS blend were utilized as a cementitious replacement material. The HPC mixtures batched with limestone showed higher compressive strength relative to the mixtures prepared with other coarse aggregate types mentioned above. All the air-entrained mixtures performed well under 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles, however, the samples in which GGBFS was utilized performed poorly relative to the other samples. Similar lower performance was obtained from the same samples in chloride permeability tests, in which fly ash substituted samples performed outstanding in both the HSC and HPC series.</p> <p>5</p> <p>AcknowledgmentsThe present research was funded by University of Missouri Research Board and the University Transportation Center (UTC) at the University of Missouri-Rolla (UMR). The authors are thankful to several manufacturers in the State of Missouri, USA, who donated materials used in this research study. Their names are not mentioned herein to prevent any concern of commercialism. The authors would also like to acknowledge Mr. Brian Sims for his effort on this project as undergraduate research assistants.</p> <p>6</p> <p>Table of Contents Index Abstract Acknowledges Table of Contents List of Figures List of Tables Abbreviations 1 Introduction 1.1 . Introduction &amp; Problem Statement 1.2 Research objectives 1.2 Scope of Studies 2. Literature Review 2.1 Fundamental Mechanisms of High Strength/High Performance Concrete 2.1.1 Aspects of Cement Hydration 2.1.2 Portland Cement Paste 2.1.3 Effect of Chemical Admixtures 2.1.4 Effect of Mineral Admixtures 2.1.5 Effect of Air Entraining Admixtures 2.1.6 Coarse Aggregates 2.2 Mix Proportions Guidelines for Optimization of HS/HPC 2.2.1 Required Concrete Strength 2.2.2 Water to Cementitious Ratio 2.2.3 Cement 2.2.4 Mineral Admixtures 2.2.5 Coarse Aggregate Type 2.2.6 Coarse Aggregate Content 2.2.7 Fine Aggregate 2.2.8 Recommended Slump of Concrete 2.2.9 Chemical Admixtures 2.3 Durability of Concrete 2.3.1 Damage and Deterioration of Concrete 2.3.2 Permeability of Concrete 2.3.3 Freeze-Thaw Resistance of Concrete 2.3.4 Abrasion Resistance of Concrete 2.3.5 Scaling Resistance of Concrete 3. Research Program 3.1 Experimental Program 3.1.1 Introduction 3.1.2 Materials 3.1.3 Mix Proportion Design 3.1.4 Test Methods and Procedures Page 4 5 6 8 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 19 19 21 23 24 26 27 28 28 31 31 32 33 33 33 34 35 35 36 45 49 52 56 59 59 59 59 61 62</p> <p>7</p> <p>4. Test Results and Discussions 4.1 Concrete Mixtures for HSC applications 4.1.1 Unconfined compressive strength 4.1.2 Compressive strength versus modulus of elasticity comparisons 4.1.3 Freezing &amp; thawing resistance of HSC concrete 4.1.4 Abrasion resistance of HSC concrete 4.1.5 Chloride permeability of HSC concrete 4.2 Concrete Mixtures for HPC Applications 4.2.1 Unconfined compressive strength 4.2.2 Compressive strength versus modulus of elasticity comparisons 4.2.3 Freezing &amp; thawing resistance of HPC concrete 4.2.4 Abrasion resistance of HPC concrete 4.2.5 Chloride permeability of HPC concrete 5. Conclusions References Appendices Appendix A Appendix B</p> <p>67 67 67 69 71 76 82 85 85 87 89 93 94 98 100 105 106 114</p> <p>8</p> <p>List of FiguresFigure 1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 Description A deteriorated bridge pier &amp; deck on Highway 44 Three Link Chain concrete theory Rate of heat evolution during hydration of Portland cement Volume relationships among constituents of hydrated pastes Durability performance of HSC/HPC mixes with entrained air QC/QA mix design evolution Cement brand variation versus compressive strength Optimum cement content for two aggregates Aggregate gradation versus compressive strength Fineness modulus variation versus compressive strength Concrete slump before and after addition of HRWR Dosage rate of HRWR effect on compressive strength Ettringite growth under SEM examination at X3000 magnification Severe concrete cracking attributed to delayed ettringite formation Ettringite growth in an air void at X390 magnification Number of freeze-thaw cycles per year Effective freeze-thaw cycles per year Schematic representation of the corrosion cell Effect of water-to-cement ratio on the permeability of concrete Void to cement ratio versus abrasion loss Influence of finish type and curing practice on wear resistance Depth of wear versus replacement type Uniaxial compression and MOE tests Concrete samples exposed to chloride solution Drilling and sampling for chloride permeability test Chloride content (percent by weight) measurements Abrasion test by rotating-cutter method Concrete test samples after abrasion test Freezing &amp; thawing test set-up Freezing &amp; thawing test set-up Compressive strength at 56-Day vs. w/c ratio Strength development of HSC samples with similar air contents Modulus of Elasticity comparisons for HSC mixtures with 100% P. cement Modulus of Elasticity comparisons for HSC mixtures with 70% P. cement and 30% fly ash Modulus of Elasticity comparisons for HSC mixtures with 70% P. cement, 25% fly ash, and 5% GGBS Freezing &amp;thawing cycles of HSC mixtures 30% fly ash substituted mixture with 0.25 w/c ratio, 0% air entrainment, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles Page 15 19 20 22 27 29 31 32 33 34 35 35 37 38 39 40 41 43 47 53 54 54 63 64 64 64 65 66 66 66 68 68 70 70 71 73 73</p> <p>9</p> <p>4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32</p> <p>30% fly ash substituted mixture with 0.25 w/c ratio, 4% air entrainment, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles Freezing&amp; thawing mass loss (%) of HSC versus entrained air (%) Freezing &amp; thawing mass loss (%) of HSC versus total air Content (%) Freezing &amp; thawing mass loss (%) of HSC versus compressive Strength Depth of wear (in.) of HSC samples Depth of wear (in.) of HSC control samples versus entrained air (%) Depth of wear (in.) of HSC with 30% fly ash substitution versus entrained air (%) Depth of wear (in.) of HSC with 25% fly ash and 5% GGBS substitution versus entrained air (%) Depth of wear (in.) HSC control samples versus total air (%) Depth of wear (in.) of HSC with 30% fly ash substitution versus total air (%) Depth of wear (in.) of HSC with 25% fly ash and 5% G.G.B.S. substitution versus total air (%) Depth of wear (in.) of HSC control samples versus compressive strength (Psi) Depth of wear (in.) of HSC with 30% fly ash substitution versus compressive strength (Psi) Depth of wear (in.) of HSC with 25% fly ash and 5% G.G.B.S. substitution versus compressive strength (Psi) Chloride content of HSC samples versus depth of concrete Chloride content of HSC at 0.5-inch depth versus compressive strength Compressive strength development of samples tested for chloride permeability Compressive strength of HPC mixtures at 56-Day versus w/c ratio Compressive strength development of River Gravel utilized HPC mixtures Compressive strength development of Trap Rock utilized HPC mixtures Compressive strength development of Limestone utilized HPC mixtures Modulus of Elasticity comparisons for HPC mixtures with River Gravel Modulus of Elasticity comparisons for HPC mixtures with Trap Rock Modulus of Elasticity comparisons for HPC mixtures with Limestone Freezing &amp; thawing cycles of HPC mixtures with River Gravel</p> <p>74 74 75 76 77 78 78 79 79 80 80 81 81 82 83 84 84 85 86 86 87 88 88 89 90</p> <p>10</p> <p>4.33 4.34 4.35 4.36 4.37 4.38 4.39 4.40 4.41</p> <p>Freezing &amp; thawing cycles of HPC mixtures with Trap Rock Freezing &amp; thawing cycles of HPC mixtures with Trap Rock River Gravel used control mixture with 0.45 w/c ratio, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles 30% fly ash substituted, River Gravel used mixture with 0.40 w/c ratio, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles Depth of wear (in.) of HPC samples versus compressive strength (Psi) Depth of wear (in.) of HPC samples versus w/c ratio Chloride content of HPC with River Gravel samples versus depth of concrete. Chloride content of HPC with Trap Rock samples versus depth of concrete Chloride content of HPC with Limestone samples versus depth of concrete</p> <p>91 91 92 93 93 94 95 96 97</p> <p>11</p> <p>List of Appendices FiguresFigure B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 B-9 B-10 B-11 B-12 B-13 Description Control sample of HSC with 0.25 w/c, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles (0 entrained air) Control sample of HSC with 0.25 w/c, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles (4% entrained air) 30% FA substituted sample of HSC with 0.25 w/c, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles (0 entrained air) 30% FA substituted sample of HSC with 0.25 w/c, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles (3% entrained air) 25% FA+5% GGBS substituted sample of HSC with 0.25 w/c, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles (0 entrained air) 25% F.A.+5% GGBS substituted sample of HSC with 0.25 w/c, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles (3% entrained air) Control sample of HSC with 0.30 w/c, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles (0 air entrainment) Control sample of HSC with 0.30 w/c, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles (1.5% air entrainment) 30% FA substituted sample of HSC with 0.30 w/c ratio, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles (0 air entrainment) 30% FA substituted sample of HSC with 0.30 w/c ratio, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles (1.5% air entrainment) 25% FA+5% GGBS substituted sample of HSC with 0.30 w/c ratio, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles (0 air entrainment) 25% FA+5% GGBS substituted sample of HSC with 0.30 w/c ratio, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles (1% air entrainment) 25% FA+5% GGBS substituted sample of HSC with 0.30 w/c ratio, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles (4.5% air entrainment) Control sample of HSC with 0.35 w/c ratio, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles (0 air entrainment) Control sample of HSC with 0.35 w/c ratio, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles (3.5 air entrainment) 30% FA substituted sample of HSC with 0.35 w/c ratio, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles (1.5% air entrainment) 30% FA substituted sample of HSC with 0.35 w/c ratio, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles (3.5% air entrainment) 25% FA+5% GGBS sample of HSC with 0.35 w/c after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles (0 air entrainment) Control sample of River Gravel utilized HPC with 0.45 w/c ratio, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles Control sample of Trap Rock utilized HPC with 0.45 w/c ratio, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles 30% FA substituted sample of River Gravel utilized HPC with 0.45 w/c, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles Control sample of River Gravel utilized HPC with 0.40 w/c, Page 115 115 115 116 116 116 117 117 117 118 118 118 119</p> <p>B-14 B-15 B-16 B-17 B-18 B-19 B-20 B-21 B-22</p> <p>119 119 120 120 120 121 121 121 122</p> <p>12</p> <p>B-23 B-24 B-25 B-26 B-27 B-28 B-29</p> <p>after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles Control sample of Trap Rock utilized HPC with 0.40 w/c ratio, after 300 freezing &amp; thawing cycles 30% FA substituted sample of River Gravel utilized HPC...</p>