Laboratory Evaluation of Abrasion Resistance of Latex ... · Laboratory Evaluation of Abrasion...

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Pervious Concrete Samples

•8


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


Physical Property Testsy p y

•10

Air Content Test Water Permeability Test


Mechanical Property Testsp y

Compressive Strength Test Split Tensile Strength Test

•11

p g


Abrasion Tests

Cantabro Test APA Abrasion Test Surface Abrasion Test (After Kevern 2008)

•12


Cantabro Testing

• Conducted with steel ball chargessteel ball charges

• Rotating speed:30 cycles/min– 30 cycles/min

• Total cycles:– 300– 300

•13


Cantabro Testing

150 mm

100 mm

Before test After test

•14


APA Abrasion Test

Vertical Load was• Vertical Load was increased to 5.5 kNfor each wheel.

•15


Studded APA Loading WheelsStudded APA Loading Wheels

120 mm

35 mm

•16


Specimens after APA Abrasion TestSpecimens after APA Abrasion Test

35 mm125 mm

300 mm

•17


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)


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


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


Perm

Top specimen Interior specimen

•20


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


T

C

•21

Type


Split Tensile Strength ResultsSplit Tensile Strength Results

3 0

3.5

Pa


2.0

2.5

3.0

Stre

ngth

, MP


0 5

1.0

1.5

plit

Tens

ile

0.0

0.5


Sp

•22

Type


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


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


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


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



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


Weight Loss Results after 300 CyclesWeight Loss Results after 300 Cycles

90100


50607080

ht lo

ss, %


1020304050

Wei

gh

010


T

•26

Type


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


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


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


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


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


3

4

5

6

A w

eigh

t los

s, % #7 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


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, %


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


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


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


THANK YOU!

•35

Date post:	18-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vucong
View:	220 times
Download:	2 times

Laboratory Evaluation of Abrasion Resistance of Latex ... · Laboratory Evaluation of Abrasion...

Documents