Post on 18-Apr-2018
transcript
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 1 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Laboratory Evaluation of Abrasion Resistance of Latex-Modified
Pervious Concrete
Baoshan Huang, Ph.D., P.E., Associate ProfessorHao Wu Graduate Research AssistantHao Wu, Graduate Research AssistantXiang Shu, Research Assistant ProfessorQiao Dong, Graduate Research Assistant
Dept. of Civil and Environmental EngineeringThe University of Tennessee, Knoxville
•1
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 2 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
AcknowledgmentAcknowledgment
• This study is financially supported by theThis study is financially supported by the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT)(GDOT).
•2
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 3 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Research ObjectivesResearch Objectives
To evaluate the abrasion resistance of latex-To evaluate the abrasion resistance of latex-modified pervious concrete.To compare several laboratory abrasion test methods.
•3
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 4 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Materials
• Coarse Aggregates– ASTM C 33 Gradation 80%
90%100%
%
#7 Limestone
#7 Granite
• Limestone– No. 7– No. 89
20%30%40%50%60%70%
Per
cent
Pas
sing
, % #7 Granite
#89 Limestone
#89 Granite
• Granite– No. 7– No. 89
Single sized limestone
0%10%20%
0.1 1 10 100Sieve Size, mm.
– Single-sized limestone• 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) (9.5 – 12.5 mm)• 4.75 mm (No.4) (4.75 – 9.5 mm)
•4
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 5 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Materials (Cont’d)Materials (Cont d)Latex was used to replace 10% cement.Natural sand to replace 7% coarse aggregateFiber content = 0 9 kg/m3Fiber content 0.9 kg/m
•5
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 6 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Mix Design• Base mix proportion
– C:CA:W = 1:4.0:0.39 by weight
AggregateSize Group Cement
(kg/m3)Coarse Aggregate
(kg/m3)Water
(kg/m3)Natural Sand
(kg/m3)Latex
(kg/m3)
Fiber (kg/m3)
Control 311.9 1403.6 109.2 98.3
9.5mm(9.5 to
12.5mm)
Fiber 311.9 1403.6 109.2 98.3 0.9
Latex 306.9 1381.2 91.3 96.7 30.7
Fiber +Latex 306.9 1381.2 91.3 96.7 30.7 0.9
4.75mm(4.75 to9.5mm)
Control 329.8 1483.9 115.4 103.9
Fiber 329.8 1483.9 115.4 103.9 0.9
Latex 324.5 1460.3 96.5 102.2 32.5
Fib +
•6
Fiber + Latex 324.5 1460.3 96.5 102.2 32.5 0.9
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 7 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Mix DesignAggregate Mix Type Cement
(typeⅠ) Latex Coarse Aggregate Natural Sand Water Fiber
LS
Control 356.3 -- 1425.0 99.8 138.9 --Latex modified 350.1 35.0 1400.3 98.0 118.1 --
# 7
LSFiber added 356.3 -- 1425.0 99.8 138.9 0.9
Latex & Fiber 350.1 35.0 1400.3 98.0 118.1 0.9
GR
Control 359.6 -- 1438.4 100.7 140.2 --Latex modified 353.4 35.3 1413.5 98.9 119.2 --
Fiber added 359 6 1438 4 100 7 140 2 0 9Fiber added 359.6 -- 1438.4 100.7 140.2 0.9Latex & Fiber 353.4 35.3 1413.5 98.9 119.2 0.9
LS
Control 362.1 -- 1448.3 101.4 141.2 --Latex modified 355.8 35.6 1423.2 99.6 120.0 --
Fiber added 362 1 -- 1448 3 101 4 141 2 0 9
# 89
Fiber added 362.1 1448.3 101.4 141.2 0.9Latex & Fiber 355.8 35.6 1423.2 99.6 120.0 0.9
GR
Control 366.1 -- 1464.6 102.5 142.8 --Latex modified 359.8 36.0 1439.2 100.7 121.4 --
Fiber added 366.1 -- 1464.6 102.5 142.8 0.9
•7
Latex & Fiber 359.8 36.0 1439.2 100.7 121.4 0.9
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 8 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Pervious Concrete Samples
•8
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 9 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Laboratory Performance Tests
• Physical Properties– Air Void Content– Water Permeability
• Mechanical PropertiesCompressive Strength– Compressive Strength
– Split Tensile Strength• Abrasion Tests
C t b T t– Cantabro Test– APA Abrasion Test– Surface Abrasion Test
•9
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 10 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Physical Property Testsy p y
•10
Air Content Test Water Permeability Test
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 11 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Mechanical Property Testsp y
Compressive Strength Test Split Tensile Strength Test
•11
p g
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 12 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Abrasion Tests
Cantabro Test APA Abrasion Test Surface Abrasion Test (After Kevern 2008)
•12
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 13 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Cantabro Testing
• Conducted with steel ball chargessteel ball charges
• Rotating speed:30 cycles/min– 30 cycles/min
• Total cycles:– 300– 300
•13
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 14 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Cantabro Testing
150 mm
100 mm
Before test After test
•14
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 15 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
APA Abrasion Test
Vertical Load was• Vertical Load was increased to 5.5 kNfor each wheel.
•15
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 16 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Studded APA Loading WheelsStudded APA Loading Wheels
120 mm
35 mm
•16
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 17 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Specimens after APA Abrasion TestSpecimens after APA Abrasion Test
35 mm125 mm
300 mm
•17
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 18 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Surface Abrasion Test (ASTM C 944)
• Load = 98 N• Abraded area = 53 5 cm2Abraded area = 53.5 cm• Diameter of abraded
area = 8.25 cm
8.25 cm8.25 cm
•18
(After Kevern 2008)
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 19 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Effect Air Voids Results
35
# 7 Limestone # 7 Granite # 89 Limestone # 89 Granite
35 # 7 Limestone # 7 Granite # 89 Limestone # 89 Granite
10
15
20
25
30
ectiv
e A
ir V
oids
(%) # 7 Limestone # 7 Granite # 89 Limestone # 89 Granite
10
15
20
25
30
ectiv
e A
ir V
oids
(%)
0
5
10
Control Latex Fiber Latex & Fiber
Effe
0
5
10
Control Latex Fiber Latex & Fiber
Effe
T i I t i iTop specimen Interior specimen
•19
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 20 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Water Permeability Results
6
#7 Limestone #7 Granite6
#7 Limestone #7 Granite
3
4
5
mea
bilit
y (m
m/s
) #89 Limestone #89 Granite
3
4
5
mea
bilit
y (m
m/s
) #89 Limestone #89 Granite
0
1
2
Control Latex modified Fiber added Latex & Fiber
Perm
0
1
2
Control Latex modified Fiber added Latex & Fiber
Perm
Top specimen Interior specimen
•20
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 21 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Compressive Strength Results
30.0
35.0
MPa #7 limestone #7 granite
#89 limestone #89 granite
20.0
25.0
e St
reng
th, #89 limestone #89 granite
5.0
10.0
15.0
ompr
essi
ve
0.0
Control Latex modified Fiber added Latex & Fiber
T
C
•21
Type
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 22 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Split Tensile Strength ResultsSplit Tensile Strength Results
3 0
3.5
Pa
#7 limestone #7 granite
2.0
2.5
3.0
Stre
ngth
, MP
#89 limestone #89 granite
0 5
1.0
1.5
plit
Tens
ile
0.0
0.5
Control Latex modified Fiber added Latex & Fiber
Sp
•22
Type
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 23 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Cantabro Test ResultsCantabro Test Results
a) Before test b) 50 cycles c) 100 cycles d) 150 cycles) ) y d) 150 cycles
e) 200 cycles f) 250 cycles g) 300 cycles
•23
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 24 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Weight Loss from Cantabro Test
Aggregate Mix TypeWeight Loss (%)
Revolution Cycles50 100 150 200 250 300
Control 6 7 17 1 25 8 33 5 70 3 83 3
# 7
LS
Control 6.7 17.1 25.8 33.5 70.3 83.3 Latex modified 4.8 9.2 13.6 18.4 22.4 25.3
Fiber added 5.9 10.4 17.3 22.1 30.0 35.1 Latex & Fiber 7.0 13.1 18.3 22.0 26.6 32.2
Control 4.7 8.8 17.8 24.6 34.0 43.0
GRLatex modified 5.7 10.7 15.2 18.7 22.1 25.1
Fiber added 6.0 10.4 14.8 19.8 27.3 32.4 Latex & Fiber 5.5 8.9 12.2 15.7 20.2 23.4
Control 5.4 9.7 13.3 16.8 20.0 23.2
# 89
LSLatex modified 3.1 5.0 6.7 8.8 11.1 13.2
Fiber added 3.6 6.8 9.6 11.9 14.6 16.7 Latex & Fiber 3.7 5.8 7.4 9.5 11.2 13.0
Control 5.4 10.6 14.5 18.6 22.1 25.7
•24
GRLatex modified 3.9 6.4 8.7 11.0 12.7 14.9
Fiber added 5.8 10.6 15.3 19.3 23.1 27.8 Latex & Fiber 3.9 6.9 9.3 12.4 15.4 17.9
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 25 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Increase of Cantabro Loss with Cycles
# 89 Limestone Mixture
30
20
25
30%
)
ControlLatexFiberLatex & Fiber
10
15
Wei
ght L
oss (
%
0
5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
•25
Cycles
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 26 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Weight Loss Results after 300 CyclesWeight Loss Results after 300 Cycles
90100
#7 limestone #7 granite
50607080
ht lo
ss, %
#89 limestone #89 granite
1020304050
Wei
gh
010
Control Latex modified Fiber added Latex & Fiber
T
•26
Type
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 27 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
APA Abrasion Results
3.0
4.0
5.0
oss,
%
#7 limestone #7 granite#89 limestone #89 granite
0.0
1.0
2.0
Wei
ght l
o
Control Latex modified Fiber added Latex & Fiber
Type
4.0
5.0
mm
#7 limestone #7 granite#89 limestone #89 granite
1.0
2.0
3.0D
epth
of w
ear,
m
•27
0.0Control Latex modified Fiber added Latex & Fiber
Type
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 28 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Correlation Analysis – Effect of Air Voids
y = 40.819e-0.037x262830
MPa7.00
8.00
#7 Limestone R² = 0.8195
14161820222426
pres
sive
stre
ngth
, M
#7 limestone#7 granite#89 limestoney = 0.1626e0.1157x2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Perm
eabi
lity,
mm
/s #7 Granite#89 Limestone #89 Granite
101214
5 10 15 20 25 30
Com
p
Effective air voids, %
#89 limestone#89 granite
R² = 0.8226
0.00
1.00
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0Effective air voids, %
Permeability vs. Air voids Compressive strength vs. air voids
•28
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 29 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Correlation Analysis – Effect of compressive strength100 6
y = 8435.4x-1.981
R² = 0.6824
30405060708090
abro
wei
ght l
oss,
% #7 limestone#7 granite#89 limestone#89 granite
y = 503.45x-1.93
R² = 0.7337
2
3
4
5
dept
h of
wea
r, m
m #7 limestone#7 granite#89 limestone#89 granite
Cantabro loss vs compressive strength
0102030
10 15 20 25 30
Can
ta
Compressive strength, MPa
0
1
2
10 15 20 25 30
APA
d
Compressive strength, MPa
Cantabro loss vs. compressive strength
y = 164.38x-1.327
R² = 0.9047
5
6
7
8
t los
s, %
#7 limestone#7 granite#89 limestone
APA wear depth vs. compressive strength
1
2
3
4
10 15 20 25 30
APA
wei
ght
#89 granite
APA i ht l i t th
•29
10 15 20 25 30Compressive strength, MPa APA weight loss vs. compressive strength
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 30 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Correlation Analysis – Effect of Air Voids
8090
100
% #7 limestone 7
8
#7 limestone
y = 7.4615e0.054x
R² = 0.7161
304050607080
bro
wei
ght l
oss, #7 granite
#89 limestone#89 granite
3
4
5
6
A w
eigh
t los
s, % #7 granite
#89 limestone#89 granite
0102030
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Can
tab
Eff ti i id %
y = 1.259e0.0457x
R² = 0.7242
0
1
2
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
APA
Eff ti i id %
Cantabro loss vs. air voids APA weight loss vs. air voids
Effective air voids, % Effective air voids, %
•30
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 31 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Correlation Analysis btw Different Abrasion TestsAbrasion Tests
90100
% #7 limestone
y = 5.7674e0.4254x
R² = 0.77335060708090
wei
ght l
oss,
% #7 limestone#7 granite#89 limestone#89 granite
20304050
Can
tabr
o w
g
010
1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5APA weight loss %
•31
APA weight loss, %
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 32 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Comparison of Three Abrasion Tests
Items Cantabro Test APA Abrasion Test Surface Abrasion Test
Cylinder, 150-mm B 300 125 B 300Specimen SizeCylinder, 150 mm
diameter by 100-mm height
Beam, 300mm x 125mm x 75mm
Beam, 300mm x 125mm x 75mm
Test Equipment LA abrasion machine APA with studded wheels Rotating-cutter Device
Test Period 10 min 1.5 h 6 min
Weight Loss35 to 80%(Lost weight: 1200 to
2800 g)
0.6 to 1.8%(lost weight: 33 to 101 g)
0.2 to 0.5%11 to 28 g(lost weight: 11 to 28
g)g)
Overall CV 10% 19% 32%
Ratio of the lowest result tothe result of the control mix 62% 45% 58%
•32
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 33 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Conclusions and SummaryConclusions and Summary
• APA AbrasionB i i i d ffi i biliBest sensitivity and sufficient repeatabilityStudded steel wheels and high load increased the severity of abrasion.
S f Ab i• Surface AbrasionUnable to differentiate between all the mixtures.Unfavorably low weight loss valuesLonger test period and/or bigger abraded area recommended
•33
2010 Concrete Sustainability Conference 34 © National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Conclusions and SummaryConclusions and Summary
• Cantabro TestFairly good sensitivity and repeatabilityHigh weight loss valuesNot so effective in evaluating of the abrasion gresistance
Failure due to impact rather than abrasion• Improve Abrasion Resistance of PCPC• Improve Abrasion Resistance of PCPC
Use small size aggregate Add latex
•34