Study of Uhpdc Neduet Group 8

8/11/2019 Study of Uhpdc Neduet Group 8

1/49

STUDY OF THE CHARACTERSTIC PROPERTIES OF ULTRA

HIGH PERFORMANCE DUCTILE CONCRETE (UHPdC) AND

PROPOSED APPLICATIONS IN PAKSTAN

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NED UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

KARACHI, PAKISTAN


2/49

ii

STUDY OF THE CHARACTERSTIC PROPERTIES OF ULTRA

HIGH PERFORMANCE DUCTILE CONCRETE (UHPdC) AND

PROPOSED APPLICATIONS IN PAKSTAN

Batch 2009-2010

By

Name Seat No

1. Zuhaib Bilal Khan CE-036

2.

Muhammad Saqib CE-113

3.

Muhammad Ahsan Khan CE-119

4.

Mohammed Hassan Irshad CE-1265. Rohan Khan CE-137

6.

WaleedKalhoro CE-139

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NED UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

KARACHI, PAKISTAN


3/49

iii

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the following students of batch 2009-2010 have successfully

completed the final year project in partial fulfillment of requirements for a

Bachelors Degree in Civil Engineering from NED University of Engineering and

Technology, Karachi, Pakistan.

ZUHAIB BILAL KHAN CE-036

MUHAMMAD SAQIB CE-113

MUHAMMAD AHSAN KHAN CE-119

MOHAMMED HASSAN IRSHAD CE-126

ROHAN KHAN CE-137

WALEED KALHORO CE-139

PROJECT SUPERVISOR

______________________ _____________________Prof. Dr. Asad-ur-Rehman Khan Prof. Dr. Asad-ur-Rehman Khan

(Supervisor) Chairman

Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering

NED University of Engineering & NED University of Engineering &

Technology, Karachi. Technology, Karachi.

______________________Mrs. Tatheer Zahra

(Co-supervisor)

Department of Civil Engineering

NED University of Engineering &

Technology, Karachi.


4/49

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our sincerest appreciation to all those who provided us the

possibility to complete this report. A special gratitude we give to our final yearproject supervisor, Dr. Asad-ur-Rehman and Co-supervisor Mrs. Tatheer Zahra,

whose contribution in stimulating suggestions and encouragement helped us to

coordinate our project successfully.

Furthermore we would also like to acknowledge with much appreciation the crucial

role of the staff of Material Testing Laboratory and Concrete Laboratory, who gave

the permission to use all required equipment and the necessary materials to complete

testing. We have to appreciate the guidance given by other supervisors as well.


5/49

v

ABSTRACT

UHPC is most recent advancement in concrete technology. It has the tendency to

attain compressive strength in excess of 30 ksi. It is a fiber reinforced concrete withdensely-packed matrix that exhibits superior mechanical properties and higher

durability. UHPC has great potential in bridge construction and precast construction.

The purpose served by this report is to devise UHPdC within local context,

methodology and constituents were incorporated within. Furthermore mechanical

properties such as Compressive strength, Tensile strength and Flexural strength were

studied. However the main focus to identify the impact of different steel proportions

onto above mentioned properties. Specimens attained a compressive strength of 12 ksi

andtensile strength of 2100 psi at 28 days.

In lieu of this project it is recommended that firstly persuade scholars to carry out

extensive research in this regard, secondly basic setup must be established for

incepting such concrete, for that financial capital and human resource has to be

consumed. All these efforts are destined to be paid off in lieu of UHPdC superior

characteristics.


6/49

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE i

CERTIFICATE ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii

ABSTRACT iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS v

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES viii

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS ix

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

1.1 General 1

1.2 Scope 21.2.1 Deliverables 3

1.2.2 Limits and Exclusions 3

1.3 Objectives 4

1.4 Methodology 4

Chapter 2: Literature Review 5

2.1 Review of UHPdC 5

2.2 Types of UHPdC 6

2.3 UHPdC Composition 62.3.1 Portland Cement 6

2.3.2 Silica Fume 7

2.3.3 Fine Aggregate 7

2.3.4 Superplasticizer 7

2.3.5 Steel Fibers 8

2.4 Mechanical Properties 8

2.4.1 Compressive Strength 8

2.4.2 Tensile Strength 9

2.4.3 Modulus of Elasticity and Poissons Ratio 10

2.4.4 Flexural Strength 10

2.5 Preparations in Local Conditions 11

Chapter 3: Manufacturing and Testing Procedures 12

3.1 Introduction 12

3.2 Batching 12

3.3 UHPdC Mixing Procedure 13

3.4 Consistency Test 14

3.5 Sample Casting 14

3.6 Curing Regimes 153.7 Specimen Preparation and Test Procedures 15


7/49

vii

3.7.1 Compressive Strength Test 15

3.7.2 Tensile Strength Test 16

3.7.3 Flexural Strength Test 16

Chapter 4: Results and Discussions 184.1 General 18

4.2 Consistency 19

4.2.1 Statistical Analysis and Discussions 19

4.3 Compressive Strength 20

4.3.1 Results 20


4.4 Tensile Strength 22

4.4.1 Results 22


4.5 Flexural Strength 24

4.5.1 Results 24


Chapter 5: Summary and Recommendations 26

5.1 Summary 26

5.1.1 Compressive Strength 26

5.1.2 Tensile Strength 27

5.2 Recommendations and Suggestions 27

5.3 Suggested Future Works 28

REFERENCES 29

APPENDIX A 30


8/49

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1.1 Comparison of UHPC Material Properties to Other Concrete 2Classifications

Table 3.1 Composition ofUHPC Mix: Batch B1 12

Table 3.2 Composition of UHPC Mix: Batch B2 13

Table 3.3 Composition ofUHPC Mix: Batch B3 13

Table 4.1 Specimen tested for different Mechanical Properties 18

for Batch B1 at 2.5 % steel fibers.

Table 4.2 Specimen tested for different Mechanical Properties 18for Batch B2 at 5 % steel

Table 4.3 Specimen tested for different Mechanical Properties 18

for Batch B3 at 8 % steel Fibers.

Table 4.4 Flow Table test Results 19

Table 4.5 Compression Test Results at different steel fibers ratio. 20

Table 4.6 Splitting Tensile Test Results at different steel fibers ratio. 22

Table 4.7 Flexural Strength Test Results at different steel fibers ratio. 24


9/49

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 2.1 Steel Wires cut into steel fibers 8

Figure 3.1 UHPC prepared in Mixer at 30 rpm 13

Figure 3.2 UHPC at Turning Point 14

Figure 3.3 Specimens being molded 14

Figure 3.4 Compression Test of UHPC Cylinder Tested with CTM 15

Figure 3.5 Splitting Tensile Test of UHPC Cylinder Tested with CTM 16

Figure 3.6 Flexural Strength Test of UHPC Beam Tested with UTM 17

Figure 4.1 Flowability of UHPC atDifferent Steel Fiber Proportions 19

Figure 4.2 Average Compressive Strengthsat Different Steel Proportions 20

Figure 4.3 Average Splitting Tensile Strengthsat Different Steel 23

Proportions

Figure 4.4 Average Flexural Strengths at Different SteelProportions 24


10/49

x

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

UHPdC Ultra High Performance ductile Concrete

NSC Normal Strength Concrete

HPC High Performance Concrete

RPC Reactive Powder Concrete

CA3 Tricalcium Aluminate

C3S Tricalcium Silicate

ITZ Interfacial Transition Zone

COV Coefficient of Variance


11/49

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

Concrete has been a front runner as a building material since its inception, pertaining to its

physical strength, easy availability, easy production and its ability to take any shape as per

desire. The conventional concrete greatly used within our construction industry, generally

known as Normal Strength Concrete (NSC), has the ability to attain a compressive strength of

3000-5000 psi. In lieu of constant evolution of industries it is the dire need of time thatConcrete Technology should be improvised to match up the pace with such evolution, Thus

grounds have been broken in this regard. Following NSC a High Performance Concrete

(HPC), with superior physical characteristics has replaced NSC in many structural

applications. HPC has the ability to attain compressive strength of 10,000-12,000 psi.

In essence of human nature of constant improvising, Researches have been conducted across

globe to devise a concrete with superior qualities compared to HPC. These Researches have

been prolific and they have come to yield a highly resilient concrete, termed as Reactive

Powder Concrete (RPC). On commercial basis it is now classified as Ultra-High Performance

ductile Concrete (UHPdC). UHPC has addressed many shortcomings of NSC and HPC such

as durability, low compressive strength, low tensile strength and low ductility. Through

extensive research this fact has been established that UHPdC has the ability to develop

compressive strength in excess of 25,000 psi and sometimes 30,000 psi, however of course,

attaining such compressive strength special procedure and standards are taken into account.

Other advantages that add to UHPdC are that, it is virtually impermeable resulting into low or

sometimes no maintenance cost.

UHPdC mainly addresses the precast construction industry in particular to bridge

construction. Pertaining to its higher compressive strength, required capacity is achieved with

smaller cross-sections. Further increased span length can lead to fewer support structures, this

leads to cost reduction and safer travelling underneath the bridge.


12/49

2

On the whole, the greatest advantage of UHPC is its improved durability that enables

engineers to place a structure in any harsh environment at hand. Superior durability will lead

to minimal damage to the structure over its functional age, which will eventually minimize

the repair cost. It is for a fact that cement required to produce UHPC is greater compared to

its counterpart, but if we consider the cement required over the complete life cycle of

concrete such NSC and UHPC, it values outnumbers the UHPC (Dr. Theresa M et al., Ultra-

High-Performance-Concrete for Michigan Bridges Material PerformancePhase I).

Table 1.1 Comparison of UHPC Material Properties to Other Concrete Classifications

Materials Characteristics NSC HPC UHPC

Maximum Aggregate Size (in.) 0.751.00 0.380.50 0.0160.024

w/c ratio 0.400.70 0.240.35 0.140.27

Mechanical Properties

Compressive Strength (psi) 30006000 600014000 2500030000

Split Cylinder Tensile Strength (psi) 360450 - 10003500

Youngs Modulus (psi) 2 x10 6 x10 4 x10 8 x10 8 x10 9 x10

Poissons ratio 0.110.21 - 0.190.24

Modulus of Rupture 1stCrack (psi) 400600 8001200 24003200

Ductility -

- 250 x NSC

Durability Characteristics NSC UHPC UHPC

Freeze/Thaw Resistance 10% Durable 90% Durable 100% Durable

Chloride Ion Penetration (coulombs

passing)> 2000 5002000


13/49

3

1.2Scope

Devising an exquisite concrete that encompasses extreme properties for high flexural

strength, which can resist tensile loading reciprocating the reduction within the amount of

steel, higher durability minimizing the maintenance cost, aesthetically more appealing, and

enhancing the workability.

1.2.1 Deliverables

It is intended to develop a High Performance Ductile Concrete, with detailed

description of its constituents and methodology adopted within local context during

the course of its inception.

Detailed report will be published incorporating testing procedure, results, suggestionsand recommendations.

1.2.2 Limits and Exclusions

Though this genre of concrete is developed in countries like USA, Malaysia and

certain European countries, constituents and methodology adopted by them cannot be

imitated in lieu of local constraints.

These constraints include,

1.

Optimal curing regime adopted in previous researches included Thermal

Curing that enabled UHPdC in attaining compressive strength in excess of 30

ksi, however unavailability of such setup, thermal curing was not adopted.

2. In previous researches (Dr. Theresa M et al., Ultra-High-Performance-

Concrete for Michigan Bridges Material PerformancePhase I), mixing time

of concrete mix was limited to 18 minutes that is because the mixer used had

rpm in excess of 50. However in our case, due to mixer constraints, mixing

time prolonged till 30 minutes, sometimes even exceeding 30 minutes.3.

In previous researches, steel fibers were acquired from industrial vendors,

however unavailability of steel fibers in local context, steel wires were firstly

acquired and then cut into desired geometry as per ACI recommendation.

4. Durability was not evaluated due to unavailability of machinery.

All course of work and results will be laboratory based, no plausible setup will be

developed for industrial scale, however probable usage of such concrete will be

established.


14/49

4

Intended strength is 20 ksi (compressive), however any increment from conventional

strength concrete will suffice project objectives.

Concrete will be developed using local merchandises.

1.3Objectives

The primary objective of this research was to acquaint with new genre of concrete popularly

known as Ultra-High Performance Concrete and to assess different material properties for its

probable use.

Characterize UHPC material properties based upon prior research.

Devise UHPC in local context pertaining to material and machine restrains.

Estimate UHPCs physical characteristics such as Compressive strength, tensile

strength and flexural strength.

Consider the impact of different proportions of steel fibers.

Develop recommendations for its probable use within construction industry of

Pakistan.

1.4 Methodology

This section will state out the chronological steps adopted during the course of our project,1. Literature Review was carried out, all information pertaining to UHPdC was acquired.

2. Second step included material acquisition. Firstly it was recommended to contact

international vendors, however when feasibility was evaluated of such

recommendation it proved impractical. After those local vendors were approached,

even they did not have fibers. To this point it was decided to acquire steel wires and

then cut them into steel fibers. All other constituents were acquired indigenously

without any trouble.

3. Third step was preparation of UHPdC. At this stage we prepared different UHPdC

mixes differing in steel fibers proportions; three different batches were made B1, B2

and B3 with 2.5%, 5% and 8% steel fibers respectively.

4.

Next step included testing specimens for desired properties; it included Consistency,

Compressive strength, Tensile Strength and Flexural Strength.

5. Finally results were accumulated and published in this report. Additionally

suggestions and recommendations were also laid forward for foreseeable future.


15/49

5

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Review of UHPdC

UHPdC is a new genre concrete with superior mechanical properties over its predecessors

Normal Strength concrete (NSC) and High performance Concrete (UHPC). This review will

aide in providing information regarding UHPdC material behavior and its current usage. A

major portion of the research and information sources related to UHPdC is from United

States. In 2006 Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transpiration published

a holistic research report titled Material property Characterization of Ultra High

Performance Ductile Concrete, Publication No. FHWA-HRT-06-103. In addition to that,

Michigan Department of Transportation, Construction and Technology Division sponsored a

research conducted by Center for Structural Durability, Michigan Technological University.

Report titled as Ultra-High performance Concrete for Michigan Bridges, Material

Performance Stage I was published in November 2008. Locally speaking no such research

have been conducted in this regard, and it is fair to say that this research is first of its kind in

Pakistan. Currently there are two codes developed for UHPdC, Association Franaise de

Gnie Civil (AFGC 2002) andJapan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE 2006), (Dr. Theresa M

et al., Ultra-High-Performance-Concrete for Michigan Bridges Material Performance

Phase I).

In early 1990s two French contractors namely Eiffage Group and Boygues Construction with

the aide of Sika Corporation and Lafarge Corporation respectively developed two distinct

types of UHPdC which exhibited similar properties (Dr. Theresa M et al., Ultra-High-

Performance-Concrete for Michigan Bridges Material PerformancePhase I), also stated in

(Harris 2004). Eiffage Group with Sika Corporation created BSI and Boygues with Lafarge

created Ductal. Although the use of steel fibers does not aide in elevating compressive

strength however these fiber do aide in improving UHPdCs tensile strength and Ductility

(Dr. Theresa M et al., Ultra-High-Performance-Concrete for Michigan Bridges Material

PerformancePhase I).


16/49

6

2.2 Types of UHPdC

Ever since the idea of UHPdC floated, and in lieu of its promising future, people and

enterprises around the globe have been infusing their capital and efforts in developing

UHPdC. Among these developers are Lafarge, Eiffage Group, Laboratoire of Central des

Ponts et Chausses of France and Dura Technology Sdn. Bhd, Malaysia and their products are

Ductal, BSI and CEMENTEC (Dr. Theresa M et al., Ultra-High-Performance-Concrete

for Michigan Bridges Material Performance Phase I), also stated in (Ahlboen et al. 2003)

and Dura respectively.

2.3 UHPdC Composition

UHPdC being new in race of concrete technology; even so, the constituents that make upsuch concrete are more or less similar contrast to conventional concrete used within Pakistan

Construction Industry. However the slight changes were made within constituents proportion

and elimination of few constituents was inevitable in lieu of acquiring the desired properties

of UHPdC. Constituents used to create UHPdC included Portland cement, Silica Fume, water

(distilled preferable), and quartz sand. Since superior properties were required in terms of

compressive strength and tensile strength, steel fibers were introduced to take much of the

proportion of the load and super plasticizer was introduced to elevate the workability in lieu

of reduced water-to-cement ratio. With such a combination a densely packing matrix is

observed that elevates the rheological and mechanical properties, also reduces the

permeability (Dr. Theresa M et al., Ultra-High-Performance-Concrete for Michigan Bridges

Material Performance Phase I), also stated in (Schmidt and Fehling 2005). Among the

changes were the elimination of coarse aggregate, primarily this initiative was taken to reduce

the inter-particle space, resultantly increasing the durability of the final product.

2.3.1 Portland Cement

Portland cement used worked as primary binder within UHPdC. It is worth notable that

proportion of Portland cement in connection to sand was at greater extent as compared to

conventional concrete. Cement with higher proportions of Tricalcium Aluminate (CA3) and

Tricalcium Silicate (C3S) and lower Blaine fineness is desirable primarily because CA3 and

C3S contribute withing the early strength acquiring of concrete mix while lower Blaine

fineness reduces the water cement ratio (Dr. Theresa M et al., Ultra-High-Performance-


17/49

7

Concrete for Michigan Bridges Material PerformancePhase I), also stated in (Mindness et

al. 2003). In our case we kept w/c ratio at 0.25.

2.3.2 Silica Fume

Silica fume added to increase flowability due to spherical nature and it served the purpose

for particle packing (Dr. Theresa M et al., Ultra-High-Performance-Concrete for Michigan

Bridges Material Performance Phase I). Further the addition of Silica fumes increase

pozzalonic reactivity (reaction with the weaker hydration product i.e. calcium-hydroxide)

leading to the production of additional calcium silicates (Dr. Theresa M et al., Ultra-High-

Performance-Concrete for Michigan Bridges Material PerformancePhase I), also stated in

(Richard and Cheyrezy 1995).

2.3.3 Fine Aggregate

Fine aggregate i.e sand was the largest constituents within UHPdC, the size selection for sand

was #14 sieve passing and #30 sieve retained, this implies that the particle size was kept

within range of 0.024mm to 0.035 mm. the rationale being that the mix was intended to be

kept as fine as possible. Additionally, the most prone portion of concrete mix to permeability

is the interfacial transition zone (ITZ), between the coarse aggregate and cement matrix (Dr.

Theresa M et al., Ultra-High-Performance-Concrete for Michigan Bridges Material

Performance Phase I), also stated in (Mehta and Monterio 2006). Such a situation made

the elimination of coarse aggregate inevitable. This ITZ zone was filled by silica fume the

smallest component in the mix with a diameter of 0.2 um (Dr. Theresa M et al., Ultra-High-

Performance-Concrete for Michigan Bridges Material Performance Phase I). Reduce ITZ

zone tends to increase the tensile strength and decrease cementitious matrixs porosity (Dr.


PerformancePhase I), also stated in (Mindness et al.. 2003).

2.3.4 Superplasticizer

Poly-Carboxylate Ether based super plasticizer was introduced to increase the workability of

concrete mix in lieu of diminutive w/c ratio.


18/49

8

2.3.5 Steel Fibers

Finally steel fibers were introduced, since

the concept of UHPC is new and foreign to

Pakistan construction industry, there was no

definite setup established here to make these

steel fibers, in lieu of such situation the

desired steel wires were acquired and they

were cut into desired length with mechanical

and personal aide. This cutting procedure

was in lieu of the standard and procedure laid out by the ACI committee 544. The standards

laid forward by mentioned committee of ACI specifies that the aspect ratio for steel fibers

should be kept within 30 -100. (The aspect ratio is the length to diameter ratio of steel fibers),

aspect ratio greater than 100 results in inadequate workability of concrete mix and non-

uniform fiber distribution (Dr. Theresa M et al., Ultra-High-Performance-Concrete for

Michigan Bridges Material Performance Phase I), also stated in (Lankard 1972) (ACI

544.88). Further ACI Committee 544 limits the length and diameter of steel fibers, length

should not exceed 76 mm and diameter 1 mm (ACI Committee 544.1R-96). In our case

length of steel fiber was kept at 30 mm and diameter of 0.461, this results into an aspect ratio

of 65. The geometry was kept simple straight with no bent-up hooks at the end, primarily

because of unavailability of such advance machine, however straight steel fiber dont

contradict with the standards formulated by ACI committee 544. The proportion of steel

fibers was kept between 2%-10%, again in accordance with ACI committee 544.

2.4 Mechanical Properties

2.4.1 Compressive Strength

Compressive strength is one of the noteworthy traits, Perry and Zakariasen (2003) established

the fact of UHPC attaining compressive strength if 2500033,000 psi (Dr. Theresa M et al.,

Ultra-High-Performance-Concrete for Michigan Bridges Material Performance Phase I).

This fact was iterated and confirmed by Kollorgen (2004) with research showing compressive

strength of 28 ksi. This elevated compressive strength could be related dense particle

packing, additional specific constituents and thermal curing. Graybeal (2005) recognized the

fact that thermal curing greatly imparts the compressive strength of UHPC, this number soars

Figure 2.1: Steel Wires Cut Into Steel

Fibers


19/49

9

as high as 53% (Dr. Theresa M et al., Ultra-High-Performance-Concrete for Michigan

Bridges Material PerformancePhase I).

Pertaining to higher compressive strength and machines mechanical restrain come alteration

were inevitable, for instance as per ASTM C 39 Standard Test Method for Compressive

Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, the standard size of specimen is 6x12 in.

anticipated compressive strength was 20 ksi. If the load rate as per ASTM C 39 was

maintained at 35 psi per second, in such situation the time required to break the specimen

would be 10 minutes, as compared to 2-6 minutes for NSC this prolong time may prove to be

barrier for production use (Dr. Theresa M et al., Ultra-High-Performance-Concrete for

Michigan Bridges Material Performance Phase I). Further Kollmorgen (2004) suggested

that there was no size effect for UHPC as small as 3x6 in (Dr. Theresa M et al., Ultra-High-

Performance-Concrete for Michigan Bridges Material PerformancePhase I). Graybeal and

Hartmann (2003) illustrated that an increment of loading rate to 150 psi per second does not

imparts the results, however it significantly reduces the time requires to complete the test (Dr.


PerformancePhase I). For a 4x8 in. cylinder, the total load required to break the specimen

at anticipated strength of 20,000 psi will be 252 kips i.e 1120 kN and time required is reduced

to just over 2 minutes.

Graybeal (2005) nearly tested 1000 cylindrical specimen for compression with four (4) curing

regimes and acquired 28 days compressive strength of 18.3, 28.0, 24.8 and 24.8 ksi for air,

steam, delayed steam and tempered steam respectively (Dr. Theresa M et al., Ultra-High-

Performance-Concrete for Michigan Bridges Material PerformancePhase I).

2.4.2 Tensile Strength

Addition of steel fiber results into increased tensile behavior of the concrete. This axiom wascertain in accordance with the standard of ASTM C 496Standard Test Method for Splitting

Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. This test indirectly measures the tensile

strength of concrete by applying a compressive force on the cylinder through a line load

applied along its length.

Research conducted by Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation

under the heading of Material Property Characterization of Ultra-High Performance


20/49

10

Concrete indicated a 28 days first crack tensile strength of 1580, 1334, 1711 and 1725 psi for

steam, untreated, tempered steam and delayed steam UHPdC.

2.4.3 Modulus of Elasticity and Poissons Ratio

ACI committee 36 (ACI 1997) formulated a relation to calculate the elastic modulus of high

strength concrete with compressive strength ranging 3 ksi to 12 ksi (Dr. Theresa M et al.,

Ultra-High-Performance-Concrete for Michigan Bridges Material Performance Phase I).

The expression is stated as,

(2.1)

Note that this equation is valid till the compressive strength lies within the range mentioned

earlier.

2.4.4 Flexural Strength

ASTM C 1018 Standard Test Method for Flexural Toughness and First-Crack Strength of

Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam with Third-Point Loading)was used to evaluate the

first crack strength and flexural toughness of UHPdC. However the tensile strength was

already measured using ASTM C 496 Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of

Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, Steel fibers greatly imparts the tensile strength of concrete,

thus tensile strength was iterated using ASTM C 1018, also post crack flexural toughnesscould be calculated. The first crack strength is an indirect indicator of tensile strength of

UHPdC, however it can overestimate the tensile strength when small prisms are used (Dr.


PerformancePhase I) also stated in (Graybeal 2005).

Cheyrezy et al. (1998) illustrated that UHPdC has the tendency to reach flexural strength as

high as 7000 psi and flexural toughness 250 times compared to normal strength concrete (Dr.


Performance Phase I). Perry and Zakariasen (2003) showed that UHPC could attain an

average flexural strength ranging 5000-7000 psi (Dr. Theresa M et al., Ultra-High-

Performance-Concrete for Michigan Bridges Material PerformancePhase I). Graybeal and

Hartman (2003) credited the elevated flexural strength of UHPC to dense particle packing

and steel fibers, which hold the cement matrix together even after the cracks have occurred


PerformancePhase I).


21/49

11

2.5 Preparation in Local Conditions

Concept of UHPdC is quite new in Pakistans context; through our research and review any

prerequisite work in this regard was not found. Therefore implementing foreign methodology

was not practical. In result of such situation amendments as per convenience and standards

were made. The alterations included are as under,

Previous researches namely Ultra-High-Performance-Concrete for Michigan Bridges

Material PerformancePhase I, used a Doyon BTF-060 planetary mixer which had

a rpm in excess of 50, that eventually limited the mixing time to 18 minutes, while in

our case mixing time exceeded 30 minutes primarily due to the conventional mixer

used with rpm no more than 30 rpm

Further adequate strength steel fiber were used in previous researches, this was not the

case with us. We had to acquire steel wires firstly and then cut them into required

length.

Thermal curing was utilized in previous researches namely Ultra-High-Performance-

Concrete for Michigan Bridges Material Performance Phase I. Thermal curing

greatly imparted physical characteristics of UHPdC so much so that it elevated the

compressive strength by 53% (Dr. Theresa M et al., Ultra-High-Performance-

Concrete for Michigan Bridges Material Performance Phase I). This was not

possible in local context essentially due to unavailability of such setup.


22/49

12

CHAPTER 3

MANUFACTURING AND TESTING PROCEDURE

3.1 Introduction

This chapter will specify methodology and procedure adopted during the course of project,

these includes the sample preparation procedure, molding operation accompanied with its

details, curing regimes for specimens, and standards adopted to investigate and quantify

physical characteristics with their modifications to facilitate use for UHPdC in particular.

3.2 Batching

In our project we had formed total of three batches with variation in proportions of steel fiber,

because steel fibers were the main alteration done in contrast to conventional concrete mixes

used within local context therefore our main focus was to study the implications incurred as a

result of variation of steel fibers. All other constituent were kept the same including the

curing regime.

Among these batches Batch # 1 (B1) was made at a steel fibers proportions of 2.5% of total

weight of the batch casted, Batch # 2 (B2) was made at a steel fibers proportion of 5% of total

weight of the batch, in the end Batch # 3 (B3) was made at a steel fibers proportion of 8% of

total weight of the batch.

Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 consist of the quantities used within the three batches in lieu of steel

fibers proportion.

Table 3.1 Composition of UHPC Mix: Batch B1

Kg % of total batch weightPortland Cement 80.94 34.02

Sand 99.5 41.82

Silica Fume 23.00 9.66

Super Plasticizers 2.50 1.05

Steel Fibers 5.94 2.50

Water 26.00 10.92

w/c ratio was 0.25, note that silica fume is considered as cementitious material and included

in this ratio


23/49

13


Kg % of total batch weight

Portland Cement 79.40 33.09

Sand 97.50 40.65

Silica Fume 22.50 9.38Super Plasticizers 2.50 1.04


Water 25.50 10.62


in this ratio


Kg % of total batch weight

Portland Cement 80.94 32.11

Sand 99.50 39.46

Silica Fume 23.00 9.10

Super Plasticizers 2.50 1.01


Water 26.00 10.30


in this ratio

3.3 UHPdC Mixing Procedure

Laid forward is the chronological order of the

procedure adopted during the course of

mixing and preparing concrete mix.

UHPdCs mixing requires special equipments

and procedure for developing a consistent

batch within a timely fashion (Dr. Theresa M

et al., Ultra-High-Performance-Concrete for

Michigan Bridges Material Performance

Phase I). Time is the key here. Local

available machines were utilized optimally to acquire desired results. The disparity was of

greater extent therefore acquiring original results was next to impossible. In a single turn a

batch of 75 kg was made due to machines restraints, under such situation single batch of 210

Kg was made in 3 goes. Mixing commenced with quantifying the constituents as indicatedearlier using an electronic balance. A dry premix of Portland cement, silica fume and sand

Figure 3.1: UHPC prepared in Mixer at

30 rpm


24/49

14

was obtained by allowing them to mix under dry condition within the mixer for 3 minutes,

primary reason being to homogenize the mix and remove any clumps formed within the

constituents. The other ingredients that included water, superplasticizer and steel fibers were

added at the appropriate time during the course of mixing (Dr. Theresa M et al., Ultra-High-

Performance-Concrete for Michigan Bridges Material PerformancePhase I) also statedin

(Peuse 2008 and Mission 2008). After attaining a homogenize dry premix, half of the

required water and super plasticizer were added into the premix, water and superplasticizer

were allowed to mix thoroughly for 8 minutes. In our situation a time came where balls of

concrete mix commenced to form, we came to call it the Turning point, after this turning

point the remainder water and

superplasticizer were dumped into the mix,

and then allowed to mix to a point where a

workable concrete mix was obtained. Steel

fibers were the last to be mixed within

concrete mix, whenever a workable concrete

mix was observed all of steel fibers were

introduced and allowed to completely mix. It

is noteworthy that the time varied with the

variation in the proportion of steel fibers.

3.4 Consistency Test

After mixing has completed, UHPdC mix was tested for consistency. ASTM C 1437

Standard Test Method for Flow of Hydraulic Cementwas adopted for this procedure. Freshly

mixed UHPC was placed within the steel cone resting on the impact table. Steel cone was

then lifted to allow the mix evenly spread onto the impact table, the extent to which the mix

had spread was measured using a Vernier Caliper. After that the impact table was allowed to

drop by 0.5 in. for 25 times, at the end of the test four measurements were made of the

sample, this quantifying its consistency.

3.5 Sample Casting

Cylinders were casted on the vibratory table, however the beams were casted using ASTM C

38. While making cylinder specimens, cylinder molds were thoroughly oiled with motor oil

and then placed upon the vibratory table. Freshly mixed concrete was poured in threeintermittent layers for acquiring a homogenize specimen with minimal voids after the

Figure 3.2: UHPC at Turning Point


25/49

15

concrete had been completely filled surface was furnished using particular tools. The molds

were left to atmosphere and kept for 24 hours. Considering beams, they were molded within

specially made molds. Wooden molds were erected with base metal plate, concrete was

poured in three intermittent layers and compacted using a steel rod with 25 impacts. Similar

to cylindrical molds they were left to atmosphere and demolded after 24 hours.

3.6 Curing Regimes

After demolding the specimens were cured within the curing tank, completely submerged for

preordained time period of 7, 14 and 28 days.

3.7 Specimen Preparation and Test Procedures

3.7.1 Compressive Strength Test

Specimen Preparation

Sample were taken out of the curing tanks and allowed to dry under ambient atmosphere

conditions for 24 hours, after it was stated that specimens have completely dried, Sulphur

caps were applied in accordance with ASTM C617, however it should be noted that ASTM

C617 limits that Sulphur shall only applied where desired strength is not to increase beyond

12 ksi. Due to unavailability of machines, other alternatives were not practiced.

Figure 3.3: Specimens being molded


26/49

16

Specimen Testing

Specimens were tested under ASTM C 39 Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of

Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. Specimens measuring 4x8 in. using Compression Testing

Machines. The loading was applied manually and rate of loading was controlled as per

professional prerogative till the sample had failed in compression. However this was not

advisable but since the machines were manual controlling the rate was difficult. However this

load rate variance has no significant implication upon the compressive strength of UHPC,


PerformancePhase I) also stated in (Graybeal and Hartman 2003).

3.7.2 Tensile Strength Test


Like specimens for compression test, specimen sizing 6x12 in. were taken out of the curing

tanks 24 hour prior to testing, and allowed to dry under ambient atmosphere. Diametrically

opposite sides were marked and one thing was assured that these marks fell perpendicularly

to the ridge formed as result of disparity within the mold.

Figure 3.4: Compression Test

ofUHPC Cylinder Tested with

CTM


27/49

17

Figure 3.5: Splitting Tensile

Test of UHPC Cylinder Tested

with CTM

Specimen Testing

Specimens were tested under ASTM C496 Splitting Cylinder Test for Cylindrical Concrete

Specimens. The specimen was longitudinal aligned with the CTM. As per ASTM C496 the

loading rate was to be kept within the range of 100 to 200 psi/min., however, again here the

rate was controlled as per professional prerogative of the technician at work. Specimens were

loaded till their fracture limit.

3.7.3 Flexural Strength Test


Testing was conducted on sample of 4.5x4.5x14 in, a little varied from as prescribed within

ASTM C 1018. Note that ASTM C 1018 specifies that cross section need to be only three

times the fiber length, this axiom is satisfied with the size that was used. Other preparatory

measure included relieving from curing tank and allowing it to dry under ambient atmosphere

conditions.

Specimen Testing

The test was conducted in accordance with ASTM C 1018. Loads were applied at the third

points on the beam, beam was placed on supports at 1 in. of offset from edges, and two point

loads were applied at the one-thirds of the span of the beams. Digital Delfectometer wasplaced under the beam right at the center to measure the deflection of the beam. Slight


28/49

18

Figure 3.6: Flexural Strength Test of

UHPC Beam Tested with UTM

modifications were inevitable in lieu of machine restraints as specified within ASTM C 1018

the deflection rate was to be maintained at 0.1 mm/min however the machine under operation

could maintain the deflection at 0.5mm/min,therefore the deflection was maintained at 0.5

mm/min.

Results of all tests have been presented in Chapter No. 4


29/49

19

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 General

Quite a few properties were investigated during the course of the project; they include

Consistency, Compressive Strength, Tensile Strength and Flexural Strength. Specimens were

tested at 7, 14 and 28 days for above mentioned properties under water curing regime. Table

4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 illustrate number of specimen tested at different time instants.

Table 4.1: Specimen Tested for Different Mechanical Properties for Batch B1 with 2.5

% Steel Fibers

Curing

Regime

Specimen

Age At

Testing

(Days)

Number Of Specimen

Compressive

StrengthTensile Strength

Flexural

Strength

Water cured

7 5 3 -

14 5 2 -

28 5 2 2

Table 4.2: Specimen Tested for Different Mechanical Properties for Batch B2 with 5 %Steel Fibers

Curing

Regime

Specimen

age at

Testing

(days)

Number of specimen

Compressive


Flexural

Strength

Water cured

7 3 3 -

14 5 3 -

28 5 2 2

Table 4.3: Specimen Tested for Different Mechanical Properties for Batch B3 with 8 %

Steel Fibers

Curing

Regime

Specimen

age at

Testing

(days)

Number of specimen

Compressive


Flexural

Strength

Water cured

7 3 3 -

14 5 2 -

28 5 2 2


30/49

20

4.2 Consistency

In order to quantify consistency of UHPC, Flow table test was performed with observations

stated in Table 4.4

Table 4.4: Flow Table test Results

BatchB1, (2.5% steel

fibers)

B2, (5% steel

fibers)

B3, (8% steel

fibers)

Mean Diameter (in)

7.25 6.25 5.31

7.82 6.37 5.43

7.75 6.37 5.43

7.25 6.25 5.30

7.53 6.31 5.30

Flowability (%) 88.28 57.81 34.76

4.2.1 Statistical Analysis and Discussion

In light of test results it is observed that workability and flowability of UHPC decreased with

an increment of proportion of steel fibers, these results are in accordance with our

anticipation and conventional studies.

Figure 4.1: Flow Ability of UHPC for Different Steel Proportions

It can be observed through Figure 4.1 that workability of UHPC decreases linearly with an

increase in steel proportion, indicating that workability is linear function of steel proportion.

88.28

57.81

34.76

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

B1 B2 B3

Flowability(%)

Batch


31/49

21

7.12

8.77 9.058.26

9.11

11.7

9.12

10.74

12.01

7 Day 14 Day 28 Day

MenCompressiveStrength(ksi)

Specimen Age

2.5% steel fibers 5% steel fibers 8% steel fibers

4.3 Compressive Strength

For compression, a total of 15 specimens of batch 1 (2.5% steel fibers), 13 specimens of

batch 2 (5% steel fibers) and 13 specimens of batch 3 (5% steel fibers) were tested.

4.3.1 Results

Table 4.5 depicts the mean compressive strength and COV based on the different proportion

of steel fibers and day at which they were tested.

Table 4.5: Compression Test Results for Different Steel Fibers Ratio

BatchCuring

Regime

Specimen

Age

Number of

Specimens

Sample

Mean (ksi)

Sample

Max (ksi)

Sample

COV (%)

2.50% Water Cured 7 5 7.12 10.74 30.3014 5 8.77 10.02 12.20

28 5 9.05 11.28 20.20

5% Water Cured

7 3 8.26 9.76 18.40

14 5 9.11 11.72 21.80

28 5 11.70 12.44 6.00

8% Water Cured

7 3 9.12 10.02 12.97

14 5 10.74 12.08 18.79

28 5 12.01 12.71 4.95


The main focus of this project was to determine the impact of different proportions of steel

fibers on to compressive strength of UHPdC. Based on the test results the 28 dayscompressive strength for 2.5% steel fiber batch was observed to be 9.12 ksi, this number is

Figure 4.2: Average Compressive Strengths for Different Steel Fiber Proportions


32/49

22

high in contrast to NSC and UHPC however this values does not represent our anticipation,

moreover the 28 days compressive strength for 5% steel fibers was observe to be 10.74 and

for 8% steel fibers, 28 days compressive strength was observed to be 12.01 ksi. The general

trend that can be observed is that an increase in proportion of steel fibers, consequently

elevates the compressive strength, however the extent by which compressive strength

increases is not significant, therefore this fact can be established with much authority that,

steel fibers influence the compressive strength but any significant change within the

proportion of steel fibers will not yield difference on same reciprocity.

It is noteworthy that ASTM C39 characterizes the failure of specimen as a shear failure.

There were some cases where the failure plane extended from the top corner to the opposite

bottom corner, and there were some cases where simple planar failure was also observed

where the specimen failed around the perimeter near the center. In both cases the failed

specimen experienced fiber pullout and fiber breakage.

UHPC has a densely packing matrix, making it virtually impermeable, the curing regime that

were at our disposal was tank curing, all the specimen were subjected within the water and let

to cure. This procedure however was not efficient pertaining to the reason established above,

the densely packed matrix doesnt allow water to penetrate within UHPC, this resultantly

does not reactivates the hydration process and UHPdC eventually did not attained the

anticipated compressive strength. This reason being a new genre curing regime was

endeavored, it was came to called as Thermal Curing, within this curing regime specimen

were subjected to steam curing rather than being immersed within the water, Graybeal (2005)

recognized the fact that thermal curing greatly imparts the compressive strength of UHPdC,

this number soars as high as 53% (Dr. Theresa M et al., Ultra-High-Performance-Concrete

for Michigan Bridges Material Performance Phase I). Therefore this fact can be

established with much confidence that compressive strength of UHPdC is greatly influenced

by the way that is adopted for its curing.

Moreover the percent COV is depicted in Table 4.5. ASTM limits that COV percentage for

laboratories specimen and specimen number exceeding 3 shall not be greater than 7.8%.

Unfortunately it is observed that these values have even soared as high as 30%. There are

adamant reasons to support these erroneous data, first reason being at ASTM C39 iterates that

loading shall be provided at rate of 35 psi/sec, that is however the case here was not, loading

was provided as per professional prerogative, and by essence of being human we were liable


33/49

23

of making any errors. Other reason includes improper sulphurcaping and insufficient

compaction.

4.4 Tensile Strength

For Tensile Strength of UHPC 6x12 in. specimens were used and total of 7 specimens of

batch 1 (2.5% steel fibers), 8 specimens of batch 2 (5% steel fibers) and 7 specimens of batch

3 (8% steel fibers) were tested. Table 4.6 depicts the mean tensile strength and COV

percentage of the specimens for the day they were tested. Further ASTM C 496 Standard

Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens is an indirect

method to calculate tensile strength of concrete, it specifies the formulation that coverts the

compressive load applied laterally onto the specimen into tensile strength of concrete

specimen.

(4.1)

Where,

T = splitting tensile strength, psi (MPa),

P = maximum applied load indicated by the testing machine, lbf (N),

l = length, in. (mm), and

d = diameter, in. (mm)

4.4.1 Results

Table 4.6 summarizes the splitting tensile strength of UHPC for differing steel proportions

and different ages.

Table 4.6: Splitting Tensile Test Results for different steel fibers ratio

Batch

Curing

Regime

Specimen

Age

Number

ofSpecimens

Sample

Mean (psi)

Sample

Max (psi)

Sample

COV (%)

2.50%Water

Cured

7 2 636 676 8.8

14 2 740 745 0.9

28 3 855 944 9.2

5%Water

Cured

7 3 1193 1302 13

14 2 1356 1461 10.9

28 2 1421 1600 17.8

8%Water

Cured

7 3 1786 2038 16.2

14 2 1938 2187 18.1

28 2 2107 2127 1.3


34/49

24

636740

855

11931356 1421

17861938

2107

7 Day 14 Day 28 Day

AverageTensileSrength(psi)

Specimen Age

2.5% steel fibers 5% steel fibers 8% steel fibers


Figure 4.3: Average Splitting Tensile Strengths for Different Steel Proportions

From prerequisite literature review, this fact was established that addition of steel fiber will

greatly add to UHPC ductility, in this report the main focus was to find out the impact of

different steel proportions onto the ductility and tensile strength of UHPC. Through

experimentation the tensile strength of specimen with 2.5% steel fiber and at 28 days was

observed to be 855 psi, similarly the tensile strength of specimen with 5% steel fibers was

observed to be 1421 psi and tensile strength of specimen with 8% steel fibers was observed to

be 2107 psi. The general trend is however similar to that of compressive strength, an

increment within the steel proportions, accordingly increases the tensile strength of UHPC.

In usual practices the NSC used has a tensile strength of 400-450 psi. However with addition

of steel fibers the tensile strength has soared to 2107 psi making it almost 5 times the tensile

strength of NSC. Therefore this fact can be established with much authority that steel fibers

greatly add to UHPC ductility and superior tensile strength is observed.

Moreover ASTM C 469 once again limits the COV percentage to 5%, In our case this value

has been exceeded on quite a few occasions, once again the reason stated earlier are the

reason pertaining to such erroneous observations, these reason included improper instrument

handling, improper specimen placing and improper compaction.


35/49

25

4.5 Flexural Strength

For flexural strength, total of two beams for individual batch were tested. It is noteworthy

that beams with 4.5x4.5x14 in. were tested for flexural strength in contrast to 4x4x14 in. as

specified in ASTM C 1018. Unlike cylinders beams were tested for flexural strength at 28

days only.

4.5.1 Results

Table 4.7 summarizes the flexural strength test for various proportions of steel fibers at 28

days.

Table 4.7: Flexural Strength Test Results for different steel fibers ratio

BatchCuring

Regime

Specimen

Age

Number

of

Specimens

Sample

Mean (psi)

Sample

Max (psi)

B1, 2.5%

steel fiber

Water

cured28 2 890 960

B2, 5%

steel fiber

Water

Cured28 2 1423 1461

B3, 8%

steel fiber

Water

Cured28 2 1990 2100


Figure 4.4: Average Flexural Strengths for Different Steel Proportions

890

1423

1990

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

B1 B2 B3

AverageFlexuralStrengths(psi)

Batch


36/49

26

Through prior literature review the tensile strength and ductility of UHPC proved to be a

pivotal parameter. In order to confirm this parameter additional test was performed in

accordance with ASTM C 1018. Beams were tested at third point loading, supports were

provided at 1 in. offset from the ends and loadings were provided at L/3 distance. Results for

all three batches were verified as the procedure were in accordance with standards, 28 day

flexural strengths respectively for Batch 1, 2 and 3, established from ASTM C 1018, were

observed to be 890 psi, 1423 psi and 1990 psi which is nearing to 855 psi, 1421 psi and 2107

psi tensile strength established from ASTM C 496. UHPdC for every batch exhibited ductile

behavior after post cracking event, unlike NSC, UHPdC tend to carry further load after first

crack had occurred, such incidents iterates the ductile behavior of UHPdC.


37/49

27

CHAPTER NO. 5

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary

This report serves the purpose of establishing the impacts of different proportion of steel

fibers and extent to which they alter the physical characteristics of UHPC. In total 3 different

batches of UHPC, with 2.5%, 5% and 8% of steel fibers were made there after UHPC was

tested for characteristics such as Compressive Strength, Tensile Strength, and Flexural

Strength. Apart from steel fiber proportion every other parameter such as curing regime,

Composition and standards were kept same. A summary of these test conducted are listed inprevious chapter 4 thoroughly. Based on those results following conclusions can be drawn,

Increment in steel fiber proportion decreases the workability and flowability of

UHPC.

UHPC compressive strength exceeded NSC, however the extent which was

anticipated couldnt be achieved because of. The anticipated compressive strength

was 20 ksi, however the results shows a maximum of 12.7 ksi of compressive strength

for 8% steel fiber batch. Moreover a conventional trend was observed of increased

compressive strength at greater steel fiber proportion.

UHPCs Tensile Strength Exceeded to that of NSC and HPC, this fact was established

in light of results that UHPC and tensile strength as much as 5 times the tensile

strength of NSC which is considered to be a breakthrough in our project. Like

Compressive strength a conventional trend was also observed here, where an increase

in steel proportion elevated the tensile strength of UHPC.4

5.1.1 Compressive Strength

Compressive strength test illustrated an average strength of 9.05 ksi at 28 days for

2.5% steel fibers

Compressive strength test illustrated an average strength of 11.7 ksi at 28 days for 5%

steel fibers

Compressive strength test illustrated an average strength of 12.01 ksi at 28 days for

8% steel fibers


38/49

28

5.1.2 Tensile Strength

Tensile Strength achieved through test was 825 psi at 28 days with 2.5% steel fibers

Tensile Strength achieved through test was 1421 psi at 28 days with 5% steel fibers

Tensile Strength achieved through test was 2017 psi at 28 days with 85% steel fibers

This fact is established that tensile strength of UHPC is a function of steel fibers

proportions.

5.2 Recommendations and Suggestions

Developing UHPdC in local context proved to be a challenge, pertaining to many reasons.

The concept of UHdPC is quite new to Pakistan and till the filing of this report, this project is

the only one of its kind. Lack of any prerequisite research within local context hindered alongthe project. Furthermore all components that make up UHPC were easily available such as

Portland Cement, Sand, Superplasticizer and Silica Fume. This fact right here can be assumed

as pros of UHPC, because the major constituents that make up UHPC are indigenous and

readily available. However the biggest challenge was the acquisition of steel fibers. Since the

concept of UHPC is new in Pakistan, there are no such facilities where these fibers are

manufactured on industrial scale, or any scale for that matter. Much of time and capital was

invested in acquiring these steel fibers, eventually steel wire with adequate strength were

acquired and cut into desired length as per ACI recommendations. This procedure proved to

be tiresome, expensive and time consuming. Furthermore characteristics of UHPdC are

governed by Thermal Curing to a significant extent, and unavailability of such setup also

lingered through our project to achieve our anticipations.

Having said that the future for UHPdC is bright, not only in Pakistan, but also all over the

world. In lieu of UHPdC promising superior properties, human resources and capital have

been invested in improvising UHPdC and utilizing it on industrial scale. In light of our

research results it is observed that UHPdC has the tendency to acquire superior characteristics

over NSC and with little improvisation its characteristics could further be improved. In order

to do that firstly basic setup should be established in order to acquire the constituents of

UHPdC and setup to treat UHPdC. The main audience for UHPdC however remains the

precast construction industry, In Pakistan the most versatile precast construction industry is

construction of bridge girders, if UHPdC were to be used within these precast girders, there is

a higher probability that greater span girders, with less cross-section and impeccabledurability could be used. Moreover such advance construction material could motivate


39/49

29

engineers to improvise their design parameters and break barriers with more advance

structures.

5.3 Suggested Future Works

In lieu of its promising future some suggestions for future work may include:

In this research impacts of different steel proportions were studied, it would be of

great interest to what impacts are observed for different curing regimes such as

Thermally Treated, Delayed Thermal Treated and Double Delayed Thermal Treated.

Pertaining to its Durability, this fact is established that UHPdC utters superior

durability over NSC. It would also be of great interest to quantify this durability.

A benefit and cost analysis could be performed for UHPdC and other conventional

construction materials already in use within Pakistan Construction Industry.


40/49

30

REFERENCES

American Concrete Institute-ACI (1998). Measurement of Properties of Fiber Reinforced

Concrete, ACI 544.2R-89, ACI Committee 544.

American Concrete Institute-ACI (2002). State-of-the-Art Report on Fiber Reinforced

Concrete, ACI 544.1R-96, ACI Committee 544

ASTM C 39, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete

Specimens.

ASTM C 78, Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam

with Third-Point Loading)

ASTM C 469, Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poissons Ratio of

Concrete in Compression,

ASTM C 496, Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete

Specimens

ASTM C 617, Standard Practice for Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens.

ASTM 670 Standard Practice for Preparing Precision and Bias Statements for Test for

Construction Materials.

ASTM C 1018, Standard Test Method for Flexural Toughness and First-Crack Strength

of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam With Third-Point Loading).

Dr. Theresa M. Ahlborn, Mr. ErronJ.Peuse, Mr. Donald Li Misson , Ultra -High-

Performance-Concrete for Michigan Bridges Material Performance Phase I, Center for

Structural Durability Michigan Technological University 1400 Townsend Drive Houghton

MI 49931-1295 November 13, 2008.

Yen Lei Voo, Ultra-High Performance Ductile Concrete Technology Toward Sustainable

Consstruction, International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering & Technology

Vol 1, No 2, December 2010, Director & CEO, Dura Technology Sdn. Bhd., Perak, Malaysia


41/49

31

APPENDIX A:

EXPERIMENTAL TEST DATA

Table A.1 Data for Consistency Test

Table A.2 Data for B1, 2.5% Steel Fiber Compressive Strength Test Cylindrical Specimens

Table A.3 Data for B2, 5% Steel Fiber Compressive Strength Test Cylindrical Specimens

Table A.4 Data for B3, 8% Steel Fiber Compressive Strength Test Cylindrical Specimens

Table A.5 Data for B1, 2.5% Steel Fiber Splitting Cylinder Test Cylindrical Specimens

Table A.6 Data for B2, 5% Steel Fiber Splitting Cylinder Test Cylindrical Specimens

Table A.7 Data for B3, 8% Steel Fiber Splitting Cylinder Test Cylindrical Specimens

Table A.8 Data for B1, 2.5% Steel Fiber Flexural Strength Test Beam Specimens

Table A.9 Data for B2, 5% Steel Fiber Flexural Strength Test Beam Specimens

Table A.10 Data for B3, 8% Steel Fiber Flexural Strength Test Beam Specimens


42/49

32

Table A.1: Data for Consistency Test

Batch with 2.5% Fibers

Casting Day - 10th September, 2013

Consistency Flow Test

Final Flow Dia (in)Mean Dia

(in)

Flow

(%)

7.25

7.53 88.287.87

7.75

7.25

Batch with 5% Fibers

Casting Day - 28th August, 2013



(in)

Flow

(%)

6.25

6.31 57.816.376.37

6.25

Batch with 8% Fibers

Casting Day - 4th September, 2013



(in)

Flow

(%)

5.35

5.40 34.765.43

5.45

5.37


43/49

33

Table A.2: Data for B1, 2.5% Steel Fiber Compressive Strength Test Cylindrical Specimens

7th Day - 17th September, 2013

Compressive Strength Test

Load (KN) fc' (Ksi) Mean fc' (Ksi) Max. fc' (Ksi)

600 10.74

7.12 10.74

400 7.16

295 5.28

320 5.73

375 6.71




520 9.31

8.77 10.02

425 7.61

560 10.02

515 9.21

430 7.00

28th Day - 8th October, 2013



500 8.95

9.06 11.28

445 7.96

375 6.71

630 11.28

580 10.38


44/49

34

Table A.3: Data for B2, 5% Steel Fiber Compressive Strength Test Cylindrical Specimens




375 6.71

8.26 9.75465 8.32

545 9.75




440 7.87

9.11 11.72

510 9.13

570 10.20

370 6.63

655 11.72




660 11.81

11.71 12.44

600 10.74

685 12.26

630 11.28

695 12.44


45/49

35

Table A.4: Data for B3, 8% Steel Fiber Compressive Strength Test Cylindrical Specimens




560 10.02

9.13 10.02535 9.58

435 7.79




645 11.54

10.74 12.08

675 12.08

640 11.45

640 11.45

400 7.16

28th Day - 2nd October, 2013



700 12.53

12.01 12.71

655 11.72

710 12.71

660 11.81

630 11.28


46/49

36

Table A.5: Data for B1, 2.5% Steel Fiber Splitting Cylinder Test Cylindrical Specimens


Splitting Cylinder Test

Load (KN) fr(Ksi) Mean fr(Ksi) Max fr(Ksi)

300 0.600.64 0.67

340 0.67




375 0.740.74 0.74

370 0.73

28th Day - 8th October, 2013



400 0.80

0.85 0.94415 0.82

475 0.94


47/49

37

Table A.6: Data for B2, 5% Steel Fiber Splitting Cylinder Test Cylindrical Specimens




545 1.081.19 1.30

655 1.30




735 1.461.36 1.46

630 1.25




805 1.601.42 1.60

625 1.24


48/49

38

Table A.7: Data for B3, 8% Steel Fiber Splitting Cylinder Test Cylindrical Specimens




740 1.47

1.79 2.04930 1.85

1025 2.04




850 1.691.94 2.19

1100 2.19

28th Day - 2nd October, 2013



1070 2.13 2.11 2.131050 2.09


49/49

Table A.8: Data for B1, 2.5% Steel Fiber Flexural Strength Test Beam Specimens

28th Day8th

October, 2013

Flexural Strength Test

Max. Applied

Load (KN)

Modulus of

Rupture (Ksi)

Mean

(Ksi)

Max

(Ksi)

37.00 0.960.89 0.96

31.50 0.84

Table A.9: Data for B2, 5% Steel Fiber Flexural Strength Test Beam Specimens

28th Day25th

September, 2013


Max. Applied

Load (KN)

Modulus of

Rupture (Ksi)

Mean

(Ksi)

Max

(Ksi)

56.40 1.461.42 1.46

52.00 1.38

Table A.10: Data for B3, 8% Steel Fiber Flexural Strength Test Beam Specimens

28th Day2nd

October, 2013


Max. Applied

Load (KN)

Modulus of

Rupture (Ksi)

Mean

(Ksi)

Max

(Ksi)

73.40 1.891.99 2.10

79.00 2.10

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	waleed-kalhoro
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Study of Uhpdc Neduet Group 8

Documents