WCPA 2015 Annual Concrete Pavement Workshop Best Western Premier Waterfront Hotel and Convention Center Oshkosh Feb 12, 2015 Optimized Mixtures for Sustainable Concrete Pavements in WI WHRP 0092 13 04 Dr. Konstantin Sobolev Dr. Steve Cramer Dr. Ahmed Faheem Mohamadreza Moini Dr. Ismael Flores Vivian Scott Muzenski Rani Pradoto Justin Flickinger Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 1 of 51
Outline Research Program Materials Characterization and Properties Optimization of Admixtures Aggregates Optimization Experimental Packing vs. Theoretical Models What is the Best Packing/Blend for Concrete Mixtures? Preliminary Concrete Study Concrete Tests (470 lb/yd 3 ) Reduced Concrete Tests (420 lb/yd 3 ) Final Concrete Mixtures: Southern/Northern Aggregates Fresh and Hardened Durability Results and Discussion Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 2 of 51
Goals: WCPA Annual Concrete Pavement Workshop Project Goals & Scope Develop guidelines for optimized concrete mix design through performance evaluation of a range of concrete mixtures. Scope: Develop a testing matrix for comprehensive testing of aggregate gradations, SCMs and HRWR admixtures in concrete. Evaluate and compare the composition, microstructural features, and physical properties of different types of cementitious materials essential for their compatibility with HRWR admixtures affecting their performance in concrete. Evaluate the effect of SCMs and HRWR admixtures on the stability of air void system, fresh properties (slump and air content), mechanical performance (compressive and flexural strength), and durability (freeze thaw resistance and rapid chloride permeability) of concrete. The results will recommend the aggregate gradations and dosage of superplasticizers/hrwr admixtures that will accommodate the use of reduced cementitious materials for the low slump concrete paving mixtures. Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 3 of 51
Problem Statement WisDOT is interested in reduced cementitious materials content than meet the specs: 470 lb/yd 3 (279 kg/m 3 ) vs. standard 517 to 565 lb/yd 3 (306 to 335 kg/m 3 ) Specs: 2 4 in slump 3 days to open for traffic (3000 psi / 20 MPa) F/T Durability ASTM 666 RCP Durability AASHTO T 277 or ASTM 1202 Previous research: concrete with reduced cementitious materials content had an adequate durability; however, these mixes frequently demonstrated poor workability and strength. Current WisDOT practice does not address the use of optimized aggregates gradation. Therefore, a research on aggregate optimization is needed to support the development of specifications including best aggregate combination for a sustainable concrete paving mixtures. Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 4 of 51
Proposed Approach WHRP requests to perform a long term strength and durability investigation of optimized superplasticized concrete (the total cementitious materials content of 470 lbs/yd 3 ) based on two types of superplasticizers/ HRWR admixtures (polycarboxylate, PCE and sulfonated naphthalene formaldehyde, SNF), two sources of coarse aggregates (combined with local sands and optimized), and representative cementitious materials consisting of three sources of portland cement, two types of slag cement (grade 100 and 120) and two types of fly ash (Class C and Class F). Optimized concrete is a complex six component material (two aggregate binary cementitious mix with superplasticizer and AE admixture); therefore, full scale optimization of such concrete is very comprehensive task. The problem can be simplified in the case when the total cementitious materials content and/or W/Cm are fixed as specified by the WHRP RFP. Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 5 of 51
Materials and Experiments 3 types of cement 2 types of aggregates 7 types of chemical admixtures 3 types of air entraining admixtures 3 types of supplementary cementitious materials 80 aggregate combinations tested for packing degree for S/N Aggregates. 91 mortars and 58 pastes with SCMs and chemical admixtures were tested for screening and dosage optimization, and to study the effect of SCM s. 67 preliminary concrete mixtures tested for Southern Aggregate 40 Preliminary concrete mixtures tested for Northern Aggregates 26 preliminary reduced cement content concrete mixtures (420 lb/yd3) tested for best approach study 27 big batches (100 liters) produced and tested for each type of aggregates Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 6 of 51
Materials: Experimental Matrix Exp. Matrix ADM # set CEM SCM AGG ADM Total Mixtures Sub Total SP1 PCE superplasticizer 1 C1/C2/C3 AG1/AG2 PL+AE 6 SP2 SNF superplasticizer 2 C1 AC AG1/AG2 PL+AE 2 PL plasticizer 3 12 AE AE admixture 4 C1 S1 AG1/AG2 PL+AE 2 AGG 5 C1 AF AG1/AG2 PL+AE 2 AG1 aggregates combination 6 C1/C2/C3 AG1/AG2 SP1+AE 6 AG2 aggregates combination 7 C1 AC AG1/AG2 SP1+AE 2 CEM 8 12 C1 cement 9 C1 S1 AG1/AG2 SP1+AE 2 C2 cement 10 C1 AF AG1/AG2 SP1+AE 2 C3 cement 11 C1/C2/C3 AG1/AG2 SP2+AE 6 SCM 12 C1 AC AG1/AG2 SP2+AE 2 AF fly ash type F, 30% 13 12 AC fly ash type C, 30% 14 C1 S1 AG1/AG2 SP2+AE 2 S1 slag 100, 50% 15 C1 AF AG1/AG2 SP2+AE 2 S2 slag 120, 50% Total Opti 1 36 Mix Type Opti 1 # set CEM SCM AGG ADM Total Mixtures Sub Total cement = 470lb/yd3 1 C1/C2/C3 AG1/AG2 PL+AE 6 6 slump= 50mm (1 4 in.; < 2.5 in. s.form) W/C = reduced (for mixtures with SPs) vs. spec. 501 Air= 4 8% (6 + or 1.5) Opti 2 cement = 420(400) lb/yd3 1 C1/C2/C3 AG1/AG2 SP1+AE 6 slump= 50mm (1 4 in.; < 2.5 in. s.form) 2 C1 AC AG1/AG2 SP1+AE 2 W/C = same as spec. 501 3 12 4 C1 S1 AG1/AG2 SP1+AE 2 5 C1 AF AG1/AG2 SP1+AE 2 Total Opti 2 18 Total Testing 54 Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 7 of 51
Materials Properties Cement CHEMICAL Item ASTMC150 Test Result Limit Lafarge Holcim St.Marys SiO 2, % 19.1 19.4 18.6 Al 2 O 3, % 5.1 5.3 5.5 Fe 2 O 3, % 2.5 3.0 2.6 CaO, % 65.8 64.3 62.6 MgO, % 6.0 max 2.7 2.9 4.3 SO 3, % 3.0 max 3.3 3.3 3.9 Na 2 O, % 0.3 0.3 0.3 K 2 O, % 0.6 0.7 1.3 Others, % 0.9 0.9 0.8 Ignition loss, % 3.0 max 2.8 1.1 1.5 PHYSICAL Spec. Test Result Item Limit Lafarge Holcim St.Marys Density, g/cm 3 3.13 3.08 3.07 Time of setting, minutes Initial 45 min 103 88 93 Final 375 max 264 222 228 Normal Consistency 27.0 24.5 26.5 Aggregates Designation Location Name C1 Sussex Pit Sussex, WI Low Chert 1"Limestone I1 Lannon Quarry Lannon, WI Low Chert 5/8"Limestone F1 Sussex Pit Sussex, WI Washed Torpedo Sand Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 8 of 51
Aggregate s Properties Southern Northern Specific Gravity Density, kg/m 3 ID Type (OD) (SSD) (OD) (SSD) WAbs., % < 75µm, % C1 Limestone 2.730 2.765 1638.2 1659.3 1.290 0.776 I1 Limestone 2.684 2.734 1605.2 1634.8 1.840 0.791 F1 Torpedo Sand 2.566 2.637 1868.3 1919.9 2.766 1.185 C2 Glacial Gravel 2.706 2.741 1674.7 1696.0 1.272 0.811 I2 Glacial Gravel 2.659 2.715 1610.6 1644.2 2.085 0.938 F2 Igneous Sand 2.560 2.62 1797.3 1836.8 2.200 0.779 Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 9 of 51
Chemical Composition of Fly Ash Chemical composition, % Class FClass C ASTM C 618 limits Class F Class C Silicon Oxide, SiO 2 46.9 32.7 Aluminum Oxide, Al 2 O 3 22.9 17.6 Iron Oxide, Fe 2 O 3 19.2 5.9 Total, SiO 2 +Al 2 O 3 +Fe 2 O 3 89.0 56.2 70 min 50 min Sulfur Trioxide, SO 3 0.3 2.0 5.0 max 5.0 max Calcium Oxide, CaO 3.8 27.3 Magnesium Oxide, MgO 0.8 6.6 Potassium Oxide, K 2 O 1.7 0.4 Sodium Oxide, Na 2 O 0.6 2.2 Moisture Content 0.1 0.8 3.0 max 3.0 max Loss on Ignition 2.3 0.3 6.0 max 6.0 max ASTM C 618 limits Physical Tests Class FClass C Class F Class C Specific Gravity 2.50 2.83 Water Requirement, % of Control 102 91 105 max 105 max Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 10 of 51
XRD of Fly Ash Class C and F Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 11 of 51
SEM images Fly ash Class C (FA C) Fly ash Class F (FA F) Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 12 of 51
Properties of Chemical Additives Admixture Brand Composition Specific gravity, g/cm 3 Solid Content, % Air Entraining Terapave AEA Sodium C14 16 Olefin Sulfonate 1.018 8.7 Air Entraining Daravair 1000 Neutralized Resin Acids and Rosin Acids 1.007 4.3 Air Entraining MB AE 90 Potassium hydroxide; Sodium Hydroxide 1.011 6.2 Air Entraining Micro Air Tall oil, Fatty acids, Polyethylene glycol 1.007 12.3 Water Reducing Admixture Pozzolith 80 4 chloro 3 methyl phenol 1.200 40.3 High range water reducing Glenium 7700 Polycarboxylate ether 1.062 34.0 High range water reducing Rheobuild 1000 Naphthalene sulphonate based 1.193 40.3 High range water reducing ADVA Cast 600 Polyacrylate Aqueous Solution 1.072 36.7 High range water reducing Daracem 19 Naphthalenesulfonic acid polymer 1.193 39.8 High range water reducing Disal Sodium Salt of poly(naphthalene sulfonic acid) 1.198 40.6 High range water reducing Megapol 40 DF Methacrylic acid copolymer 1.079 38.9 Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 13 of 51
Admixture Optimization: Flow of Mortars Flow, % 90 80 PCE PCE SNF 70 60 SNF 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 Dosage, % HD1 HAC HG7 HR1 RP8 Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 14 of 51
Admixture Optimization: Air Entrainment Density, g/cm3 2.350 2.300 2.250 2.200 2.150 2.100 2.050 PCE SNF HD1 HAC HG7 HR1 RP8 2.000 1.950 Mid Range 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 Dosage, % Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 15 of 51
Admixture Optimization: Strength Compressive Strength, MPa 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Ref RP8 (0.1%) RP8 (0.15%) RP8 (0.2%) HR1 (0.15%) HR1 (0.2%) HR1 (0.3%) HR1 (0.4%) HG7 (0.05%) HG7 (0.1%) HG7 (0.15%) HG7 (0.2%) 3 days 7 days 28 days Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 16 of 51
Heat of Hydration Heat Flow, mw/g Dry Binder 6 5 L L+P 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Time, hours L Lafarge Cement P Polycarboxilate (Glenium 7700) S Slag F Class F Fly Ash C Class C Fly Ash Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 17 of 51
Proposed Approach Superplasticized Fly Ash Concrete ASTM C 109 Heat Flow, mw/g Dry Binder 6 5 4 Ref HG7(0.15%) FAF(30%) HG7(0.15%) FAC(30%) HG7(0.15%) SL(50%) HG7(0.15%) 3 2 1 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Time, hours Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 18 of 51
Aggregates Optimization: Experimental Packing VeBe Test : Is previously used to measure the consistency of RCC and low slump concrete (ASTM C1170): Filling container Striking with rod Vibration Vibration + Compaction Different Methods are proposed by researchers for Dry Packing Density of aggregates with different compaction index for experimental packing of aggregates. VeBe Apparatus is used for as a standard tool to measure packing density of 40 different aggregate combinations in 2 states: Pouring (Loose) Vibration (45s) + Compaction (Compacted) Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 19 of 51
Experimental Packing Packing Density (kg/m3) Exp. Packing for C1, F1, I1 Blends: 2100 2050 2000 28.0 31.3 27.8 1950 25.7 1900 1850 1800 1750 10% I 0% I 1700 20% I 1650 30% I 1600 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 F1 % Packing Density (kg/m3) Exp. Packing for C2, F2, I2 Blends: 2100 28.1 32.4 2050 33.1 2000 30.9 29.0 1950 1900 1850 1800 10% I 1750 0% I 1700 20% I 1650 30% I 1600 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 F2 % The max. packing occurs at 60% F1. The practical limitations impose 40% F1. The max. packing occurs at 70% F1. The practical limitations impose 50% F1. Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 20 of 51
Experimental Packing vs. Model Experimental Results and Regression Model Response for C1, F1, I1: 27.8 28 C.S. 7 C.S. had similar trend. 22.8 31.3 25.7 28.0 30.2 30.4 27.6 24.9 30.1 23.6 20.9 22.4 Loose vs. Compacted: C.P.D. (%) 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 y = 1.0846x + 4.416 R² = 0.955 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 L.P.D. (%) Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 21 of 51
Classical Models Aim Model: Model suggested in 1967 takes into account: i. Takes into account the interaction of larger particles on packing of smaller particles based on Furnas model wall effect (F>>C) ii. Describes the packing degree as: 1, for F dominant 1 1 1 1 0.9 for C dominant 2, Toufar Model: Model suggested in 1976 [5] is based on Furnas model and takes into account: i. Diameter ratio (k ) ii. probability of the number of interstices between coarse particles (k ) iii. Describes the packing degree as: α Uses three experimental values as : 1 r α r α r 1 α 1 k k Modified Toufar Model: Characteristic Diameter Eigenpacking Degree Grain Density Modified Toufar Model suggested in 1997 and corrects the (k ) Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 22 of 51
Experimental Packing vs. Models Model Response for C1, F1, I1 Blends: Model Response for C2, F2, I2 Blends: Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 23 of 51
Aggregates Optimization: Virtual Aggregate Packing 86% packing 500 disks N=10 Kr=1.005 Ks= 10 Sr = 1.025 50.39% Packing 1000 Spheres N= 100k Kr= 1.001 Ks= 1.5 Sr= 1.001 Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 24 of 51
Mix ID Compacted Packing Degree (PD C ) Experimental Packing vs. Models Loose Packing Degree (PD L ) F1, % I1, % C1, % Slump (mm) Bulk Density (kg/m3) Air Content (%) C.S. MPa (7days) C.S. MPa (28days) 1 70.7 61.7 40 30 30 146 2457 1.1 23.4 30.8 0.44 404 2 68.3 58.8 35 10 55 205 2479 0.9 16.5 23.6 0.64 694 Best Fit n St. Dev. Input Output # of Spheres Red. Coef. Sep. Coef. Step Sep. St Best St. # of Trials P.D. (K red..) (k.) (S..) dev. fit n dev. fit 1 5 Million 1.01 5 1.025 10 78.80 2924 0.50 2182 fit 2 5 Million 1.01 10 1.025 10 74.52 964 0.63 447 Percent Passing 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Mix 1 Mix 2 power 0.64 power 0.51 0 1 Aggregate Size (mm) 10 Percentage Passing 100.0 90.0 fit 1, 5 Million Spheres 80.0 Fit 2, 5 Million Spheres 70.0 0.63 60.0 0.5 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 100 1000 10000 Particle Size (Micorn) Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 25 of 51
Aggregate Blends vs. Power Curves Percent Passing 100 80 60 40 20 Northern Aggregates: C1, F1, I1 0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 Aggregate Size (mm) Percent Passing 100 80 60 40 20 Southern Aggregates: C2, F2, I2 0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 Aggregate Size (mm) Power 0.7 Power 0.5 Power 0.45 Power 0.35 40F 30I 30C 50F 20I 30C 50F 10I 40C 40F 10I 50C 35F 10I 55C 60F 0I 40C 55F 0I 45C 40F 0I 60C Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 26 of 51
Concrete Mixtures: 470 lb/yd 3 (280 kg/m 3 ) Packing Degree (%) 80 75 70 R² = 0.5213 R² = 0.4552 65 R² = 0.6172 R² = 0.495 60 55 Loose 28 Days Comp. 28 Days Loose 7 Days Comp. 7 Days 50 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 Compressive Strength (MPa) Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 27 of 51
Aggregates Characterization Individual Percentage Retained: 20.00 SouthernAgg. 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 52.5F 10I 37.5C 35F 10I 55C 50F 20I 30C 40F 30I 30C 55F 0I 45C 50F 10I 40C 60F 0I 40C 40F 0I 60C 40F 10I 50C Power 0.7 Power 0.35 (8 band) (18 band) 2.00 0.00 0.1 1 10 100 Aggregate Size (mm) Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 28 of 51
Aggregates Characterization Individual Percentage Retained: 20.00 NorhternAgg. 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 52.5F 10I 37.5C N 35F 10I 55C N 50F 20I 30C N 40F 30I 30C N 55F 0I 45C N 50F 10I 40C N 60F 0I 40C N 40F 0I 60C N 40F 10I 50C N Power 0.7 Power 0.35 (8 band) (18 band) 45F 10I 45C N 0.00 0.1 1 10 100 Aggregate Size (mm) Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 29 of 51
Shilestone Workability and Coarseness Factors Southern Aggregates 45C 55F 0I 37.5C 52.5F 10I 55C 35F 10I 30C 50F 20I 30C 40F 30I 40C 50F 10I 40C 60F 0I 60C 40F 0I 50C 40F 10I 45C 45F 10I 50C 50F 0I WF 43 41 27 40 32 39 47 31 31 35 39 CF 64 59 66 54 54 60 61 69 64 62 66 Northern Aggregates 45C 55F 0I 37.5C 52.5F 10I 55C 35F 10I 30C 50F 20I 30C 40F 30I 40C 50F 10I 40C 60F 0I 60C 40F 0I 50C 40F 10I 45C 45F 10I 50C 50F 0I WF 47 45 30 44 36 43 51 34 34 39 40 CF 59 47 54 37 32 48 57 62 52 50 50 Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 30 of 51
Experimental Matrix and Fresh Properties Legends: C1: Cement type 1 C2: Cement type 2 C3: Cement type 3 279 kg/m 3 (470 lb/yd 3 ) R 249 kg/m 3 (420 lb/yd 3 ) S: Slag Cement Grade 100 C: Class C Fly Ash F: Class F Fly Ash M: Mid Range: 4 chloro 3 methyl phenol (WRA) N: SNF: Naphthalene Sulphonate based SP (HRWRA) P: PCE: Polycarboxylate ether SP (HRWRA) W/C was adjusted to satisfy workability requirement (2 4 in slump) 279 kg/m3 (470 lb/yd3) 249 kg/m3 (420 lb/yd3) Chem. Admix. Dos.(%) W/C Slump (mm) Air Labels PCE SNF Mid 0 30 AE Range min mins % C1 S M 0.15 0.01 0.42 49 30 6.5 C1 S N 0.4 0.015 0.43 51 20 5.0 C1 S P 0.15 0.02 0.37 43 30 7.1 C1 S M S 0.15 0.005 0.42 100 55 8.0 C1 S N S 0.4 0.015 0.43 100 50 7.1 C1 S P S 0.15 0.025 0.37 188 160 4.7 C1 S M C 0.15 0.005 0.37 30 15 5.4 C1 S N C 0.4 0.01 0.38 65 35 5.9 C1 S P C 0.15 0.01 0.33 45 10 4.8 C1 S M F 0.15 0.02 0.42 95 65 9.0 C1 S N F 0.4 0.025 0.43 130 92 9.5 C1 S P F 0.15 0.015 0.32 32 25 6.9 C2 S M 0.150 0.005 0.37 7 0 4.5 C2 S N 0.400 0.015 0.38 10 8 4.0 C2 S P 0.150 0.020 0.37 92 39 8.5 C3 S M 0.150 0.010 0.42 35 20 6.6 C3 S N 0.400 0.025 0.43 56 42 6.6 C3 S P 0.150 0.045 0.37 30 20 6.2 C1 S M R 0.150 0.010 0.45 35 11 8.4 C1 S P R 0.15 0.030 0.43 133 113 9.4 C1 S P C R 0.15 0.015 0.38 37 30 6.6 C1 S P S R 0.15 0.03 0.40 110 45 5.9 C1 S P F R 0.15 0.05 0.41 68 30 9.8 C2 S M R 0.15 0.015 0.41 13 0 5.0 C2 S P R 0.15 0.020 0.39 40 7 8.0 C3 S M R 0.15 0.005 0.42 22 12 7.4 C3 S P R 0.15 0.025 0.43 38 28 9.9 Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 31 of 51
Concrete Mixtures: 470 lb/yd 3 (280 kg/m 3 ) Density (kg/m3) 2450 2425 2400 2375 2350 2325 y = 20.848x + 2496.4 R² = 0.9107 2300 2275 2250 2225 2200 2175 2150 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Air (%) Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 32 of 51
Mechanical Performance Results: The mixtures containing Class C fly ash PCE HRWR and Slag concrete had superior performance 279 kg/m3 (470 lb/yd3) 249 kg/m3 (420 lb/yd3) Labels W/C Compressive Strength (MPa) Flexural Strength (MPa) 1 3 7 28 90 360 3 7 28 90 L S M BB04 0.42 6.8 17.7 25.2 31.7 35.0 38.8 6.6 7.3 8.8 8.6 L S N BB09 0.43 13.9 22.6 27.2 33.6 39.2 40.9 6.4 7.2 8.6 9.5 L S P BB13 0.37 13.6 27.7 32.5 38.1 43.6 47.4 7.1 7.7 9.3 7.3 L S M S BB02 0.42 2.9 13.2 19.8 33.3 41.6 45.1 0.0 6.7 8.9 9.6 L S N S BB08 0.43 4.9 14.7 24.2 35.2 41.0 43.5 5.2 7.5 9.9 9.7 L S P S BB11 0.37 8.9 20.2 30.3 38.0 40.3 48.0 5.9 7.3 9.2 8.4 L S M C BB06 0.37 6.0 23.3 35.0 48.3 56.4 59.4 6.1 8.1 9.6 11.4 L S N C BB07 0.38 5.1 22.0 30.0 41.9 50.4 50.7 6.6 6.6 9.1 10.9 L S P C BB10 0.33 10.1 25.7 38.1 49.3 56.6 63.2 7.0 8.6 10.4 11.6 L S M F BB05 0.42 3.5 9.6 13.3 19.1 27.0 31.3 3.7 4.6 5.9 7.5 L S N F BB03 0.43 4.0 8.8 12.6 18.6 25.2 29.4 3.8 4.7 6.0 7.5 L S P F BB12 0.32 10.0 20.3 25.0 32.7 42.6 48.4 6.2 6.3 8.0 7.5 H S M BB19 0.37 20.4 31.0 34.9 41.7 49.2 46.6 5.8 6.7 7.3 8.3 H S N BB18 0.38 20.4 31.0 34.9 41.7 49.2 46.6 6.2 6.9 7.3 8.8 H S P BB17 0.37 25.1 25.6 29.3 32.9 38.0 43.4 5.5 5.6 6.1 8.8 S S M BB16 0.42 11.1 17.7 22.8 29.9 35.6 38.7 6.4 6.1 7.0 8.2 S S N BB15 0.43 13.0 18.8 23.1 28.2 34.0 37.3 6.3 7.3 6.6 6.8 S S P BB14 0.37 16.3 24.0 27.4 34.6 42.8 48.1 6.8 7.6 7.1 7.8 L S M R BB20 0.45 3.9 14.0 19.5 23.4 28.7 29.8 3.8 4.3 5.3 5.5 L S P R BB21 0.43 8.4 18.3 21.1 26.6 29.3 30.9 4.3 5.2 5.4 5.6 L S P C R BB22 0.38 7.1 19.6 28.2 39.7 44.1 49.8 4.5 5.5 7.1 8.3 L S P S R BB23 0.40 7.8 18.5 28.3 38.0 39.8 44.3 4.7 5.9 7.8 8.1 L S P F R BB24 0.41 6.1 10.0 12.5 16.9 22.7 26.7 3.1 3.2 4.0 4.4 H S M R BB29 0.41 12.3 20.7 23.1 30.1 37.2 38.6 4.2 5.7 6.9 7.1 H S P R BB27 0.39 17.9 23.9 26.6 32.1 35.2 37.2 5.2 5.2 6.1 6.9 S S M R BB28 0.42 14.1 22.6 26.4 31.2 35.3 37.5 5.2 5.7 6.3 7.2 S S P R BB26 0.43 11.1 15.7 18.8 25.1 29.0 31.9 3.9 4.3 5.7 5.7 Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 33 of 51
Mechanical Performance Early Strength and Strength Development : The mixtures with Class C fly ash, PCE HRWR, and slag cement had superior performance W/C 0.37 W/C 0.42 60 60 50 50 40 40 C.S. (MPa) 30 C.S. (MPa) 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Days 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Days C1 S M C C2 S N C1 S N C C2 S M C1 S M S C1 S N S C1 S N C1 S P C1 S P S C3 S P C2 S P C1 S M C3 S N C1 S N F Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 34 of 51
Mechanical Performance Early Strength and Strength Development : The mixtures containing Class C fly ash, PCE HRWR, and slag cement had superior performance W/C 0.37 Reduced C W/C 0.42 Reduced C 60 60 50 C.S. (MPa) 40 30 20 10 50 40 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Days C.S. (MPa) 30 C1 S P C R 20 W/C 0.45 Reduced C 60 10 50 C.S. (MPa) 40 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Days 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Days C1 S P S R C2 S M R C3 S M R C2 S P R C1 S P R C3 S P R C1 S P F R C1 S M R Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 35 of 51
C.S. vs. F.S. correlation Southern Aggregates Flexural Strength, MPa 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Reference Slag Class F Class C y = 0.0944x + 1.7272 R² = 0.6951 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Compressive Strength, MPa Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 36 of 51
RCP Performance 30 days: Labels The mixtures containing Slag, Class C fly ash Had a very low permeability 90 days: The mixtures containing Class F fly ash Had a very low permeability Significant Improvement: Class F fly ash 279 kg/m3 (470 lb/yd3) 249 kg/m3 (420 lb/yd3) W/C Air RCP Charge Passed (Coulomb) % 30 days 90 days Drop % C1 S M BB04 0.42 6.5 3220 2299 29 C1 S N BB09 0.43 5.0 3416 2192 36 C1 S P BB13 0.37 7.1 2446 1897 22 C1 S M S BB02 0.42 8.0 1165 731 37 C1 S N S BB08 0.43 7.1 1368 706 48 C1 S P S BB11 0.37 4.7 1278 900 30 C1 S M C BB06 0.37 5.4 1988 1045 47 C1 S N C BB07 0.38 5.9 2263 1110 51 C1 S P C BB10 0.33 4.8 1653 695 58 C1 S M F BB05 0.42 9.0 3321 944 72 C1 S N F BB03 0.43 9.5 2306 853 63 C1 S P F BB12 0.32 6.9 1606 670 58 C2 S M BB19 0.37 4.5 2058 1333 35 C2 S N BB18 0.38 4.0 1939 1409 27 C2 S P BB17 0.37 8.5 2151 1647 23 C3 S M BB16 0.42 6.6 2416 1503 38 C3 S N BB15 0.43 6.6 2344 1474 37 C3 S P BB14 0.37 6.2 1775 1308 26 C1 S M R BB20 0.45 8.4 3058 2126 30 C1 S P R BB21 0.43 9.4 2768 2129 23 C1 S P C R BB22 0.38 6.6 2119 1035 51 C1 S P S R BB23 0.40 5.9 934 577 38 C1 S P F R BB24 0.41 9.8 1964 949 52 C2 S M R BB29 0.41 5.0 2050 1244 39 C2 S P R BB27 0.39 8.0 2283 1936 15 C3 S M R BB28 0.42 7.4 2569 1768 31 C3 S P R BB26 0.43 9.9 1997 1107 45 Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 37 of 51
RCP Performance C3 S P C3 S N C3 S M C2 S P C2 S N C2 S M C1 S P F C1 S N F C1 S M F C1 S P C C1 S N C C1 S M C C1 S P S C1 S N S C1 S M S C1 S P C1 S N C1 S M 90 days 30 days 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Charge Passed (Coulombs) 30 days: The mixtures containing Slag, Class C fly ash had very low permeability 90 days: The mixtures containing Class F fly ash had very low permeability Significant Decrease: Class F fly ash Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 38 of 51
RCP Performance C3 S P R C3 S M R 90 days 30 days C2 S P R C2 S M R C1 S P F R C1 S P S R C1 S P C R C1 S P R C1 S M R 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Charge Passed (Coulombs) 30 days: The mixtures containing Slag, Class C fly ash had very low permeability 90 days: The mixtures containing Class F fly ash had very low permeability Significant Decrease: Class F fly ash Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 39 of 51
Freeze Thaw Performance The mixtures containing Class C fly ash PCE HRWR and Slag had superior performance Reduced C Mixtures had outstanding performance Labels W/C Air DF Mass Loss % % % C1 S M BB04 0.42 6.5 99.2 0.10 C1 S N BB09 0.43 5.0 94.7 1.19 C1 S P BB13 0.37 7.1 100.0 0.54 C1 S M S BB02 0.42 8.0 93.5 3.68 C1 S N S BB08 0.43 7.1 93.5 3.54 C1 S P S BB11 0.37 4.7 92.4 4.49 C1 S M C BB06 0.37 5.4 92.9 3.82 C1 S N C BB07 0.38 5.9 93.9 4.10 C1 S P C BB10 0.33 4.8 98.0 0.61 C1 S M F BB05 0.42 9.0 99.2 1.05 C1 S N F BB03 0.43 9.5 98.5 1.05 C1 S P F BB12 0.32 6.9 99.8 0.08 C2 S M BB19 0.37 4.5 97.0 0.99 C2 S N BB18 0.38 4.0 95.0 2.06 C2 S P BB17 0.37 8.5 100.0 0.73 C3 S M BB16 0.42 6.6 100.0 0.22 C3 S N BB15 0.43 6.6 98.0 0.36 C3 S P BB14 0.37 6.2 98.0 0.64 C1 S M R BB20 0.45 8.4 100.0 0.07 C1 S P R BB21 0.43 9.4 99.0 0.53 C1 S P C R BB22 0.38 6.6 100.0 1.2 C1 S P S R BB23 0.40 5.9 98.0 1.76 C1 S P F R BB24 0.41 9.8 97.0 1.54 C2 S M R BB29 0.41 5.0 100.0 0.24 C2 S P R BB27 0.39 8.0 100.0 0.99 C3 S M R BB28 0.42 7.4 100.0 0.35 C3 S P R BB26 0.43 9.9 100.0 0.11 Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 40 of 51
Freeze Thaw Performance Some mixtures containing Mass Loss PCE without SCMs gained mass C3 S P C3 S N C3 S M C2 S P C2 S N C2 S M C1 S P F C1 S N F C1 S M F C1 S P C C1 S N C C1 S M C C1 S P S C1 S N S C1 S M S C1 S P C1 S N C1 S M 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Mass Loss (%) Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 41 of 51
Overall Performance Mixtures with Reduced Cement : The mixtures containing Mass Loss Mid range and PCE without SCMs gained mass C3 S P R C3 S M R C2 S P R C2 S M R C1 S P C1 S P C1 S P C1 S P R C1 S M R 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Mass Loss (%) Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 42 of 51
Superplasticizer: Conclusions and Recommendations The use of superplasticizer (PCE/SNF) enables to improve the performance of AE concrete with cement content of 420 lb/yd3 at w/c < 0.5 and even 0.45 when Fly C was used with PCE. The compressive strength of reference concrete with midrange plasticizer (#15) was at the level of 20 MPa (3000 psi) and 30 MPa (4500 psi) at the 7 and 28 days respectively. The use of SNF resulted in concrete of similar performance as reference midrange water reducer. PCE admixture was superior to reduce the W/C and improve the strength of mixtures with reduced cementitious material content and, especially, with SCMs. The use of PCE resulted in concrete (based on southern aggregates) of higher strength up to 33 MPa (4784 psi) and 38 MPa (5693 psi ) at 7 and 28 days, respectively. Similar results were demonstrated for concrete based on Northern aggregates. The use of PCE and class C fly ash improved the strength to 38.1 MPa (5524 psi) and 49.3 MPa (7153 psi) for 7 and 28 days, respectively (southern aggregates). The use of PCE and fly ash F resulted in a concrete with strength as high as 25 MPa (3741 psi) and 40 MPa (5855 psi) at the age of 3 and 28 days, respectively. Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 43 of 51
The Effect of SCMs: Conclusions and Recommendations Use of selected SCMs is beneficial in terms of durability and strength development. The contribution of SCM depends on the properties/type of SCM. However, concrete with class F fly ash may have a low strength insufficient to meet the DOT spec. Fly ash C had an exceptional compatibility with superplasticizers, especially PCE type. The w/cm in the mixtures with PCE was reduced to 0.32 and 7 and 28 day strength was increased to 35.5 MPa (5150 psi) and 46.7 MPa (6770 psi), respectively. Concrete with class F Fly ash had marginal performance. Only combination with PCE was enabled to obtain the strength similar to reference. Still improvement of class F concrete strength at later ages may be expected. Reduced dosage (15%) of fly ash F or combination with fly ash C can be suggested to improve the early age performance. Slag cement concrete increased the strength even in reduced cementitious material content mixtures. Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 44 of 51
Conclusions and Recommendations Aggregates Optimization: The early age strength of concrete can be increased by up to 15% using optimization of aggregate proportions, particularly, incorporating intermediate aggregates (up to 30%). Aggregate optimization may require to use up to 50% of sand in the mix. The intermediate aggregate is beneficial for concrete performance and can be used up to 30% replacing coarse aggregate. Optimal Mixtures (C:I:F) were 40:10:50 for Southern aggregates and 50:10:40 for Northern aggregates. The power curves can be used as an additional criteria to select the best aggregate combination. Based on the experimental results, the power curve based on the level of workability should be selected for optimizing the best blend. Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 45 of 51
Conclusions and Recommendations Reduced Cement Content: The reduction of cementitious materials content to 279 kg/m3 (420 lb/yd3) is possible with careful selection of mix components and optimization of aggregates. The strength reduction was up to 20% (due to increase of w/cm). Also these mixtures had lower workability and were more difficult to compact. The use of fly ash C with PCE was beneficial so the strength was even higher than reference, 28.7 MPa (4160 psi) and 39.8 MPa (5770 psi) for 7 and 28 days, respectively. However, the workability of these mixtures was somehow low (1 of slump). The adjustment for slump may require the increase of w/cm to the unacceptable levels higher than 0.55 which may compromise the durability. Only fly ash potentially C concrete may be effectively designed at very low cementitious material content of 249 kg/m3 (420 lb/yd3). Cement Type Study: 3 types of cement investigated had different performance especially in early age, which may effect the performance of concrete with SCMs. These cements were not optimized for admixture type and dosage (which may potentially improve the performance) Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 46 of 51
Durability: RCP Conclusions and Recommendations The concrete based on portland cement had the highest RCP. The specimens with SCM's had the lowest RCP values, specially after 90 days of curing. The addition of slag presented the lowest RCP values at all testing ages. Class F fly ash presented a minor reduction of the RCP values at 30 days in comparison to the reference mixes; however, at 90 days of curing the RCP values were significantly reduced. Overall, the SCM's reduce the permeability of the concrete due to the pozolanic reactions, especially at longer curing ages. Durability: Freeze Thaw All investigated concrete types based on Southern aggregates had a durability factor of more than 90%. Concrete specimens produced with reduced cement presented a larger length change than those made at higher cement volumes. Mixes with SCM's had lower length change values, most probably due to the pozolanic reaction and the development of denser cementitious matrix. Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 47 of 51
Experimental Methods: Educational Module https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/sobolev/www/v_lab/ Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 48 of 51
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS WisDOT NSF UWM RGI & UWM Foundation Lafarge Zignego Ready Mix CFIRE WE Energies BASF WR Grace Handy Chemicals Kuraray Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 49 of 51
Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 50 of 51
THANK YOU!!! More info at: super beton.com Questions? E mail: sobolev@uwm.edu Konstantin Sobolev Presentation February 12, 2015 51 of 51