THEEFFECTS OF WASTE GLASS AGGREGATE

ON THE

STRENGTH AND DURABILITY

OF

PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE

BY

Craig Polley

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science Civil and Environmental Engineering (Structures)

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Wisconsin -Madison 1996

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I extend my thanks to my advisor Dr. Steven M. Crarner, Associate Professor of Civil and
Environmental Engineering; he has provided invaluable guidance and support throughout these two years. The energy and attention which he afforded to this research and the interest which has taken in my professional development are deeply appreciated. Acknowledgment is extended to Dr. Rodolfo V. de la Cruz, Associate Professor of Materials s of the project. Science and Engineering for h ~ support F i c i a l support of the project fi-om the University of Wisconsin Solid Waste Research Council, the Dane County Department of Public Works, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and the United States Enviromntal Protection Agency is gratefully acknowledged. The direction, interest, and assistance of John Reindl, Recycling Manager for the Dane County Department of Public Works, is appreciated. The following contributions are also deeply appreciated: John Dunn, Dane County Public Works Engineer for technical assistance and coordination of the field trials The workers at Joe Daniels, Inc. for their patience during the painstaking construction of the field trial sections M. J. Schmidt Corp. of Milwaukee for their donation of waste glass LaFarge Corporation and Holnarn Cement Corporation for their donation of portland cement Wisconsin Power & Light and Wisconsin Electric Power Company for their donations of fly ash Lycon, Inc. for their donation of aggregates

W. R. Grace, Inc. for their donation of admixtures

Dr. Alex Mishulovich of Construction Technology Laboratory for processing the powdered
glass For their guidance and help throughout my Master of Science program and before, I thank Prof. Jok A. Pinchiera, Prof. Michael G. Oliva, and Prof. J e k y S. Russell. Invaluable laboratory assistance was received from Bill Lang; and the research would not have been executed without the help of my student colleagues and predecessors: Paul Bakke, Andrea Carpenter, Kamili Jackson, Carolyn Knight, John Reigel, Dipal Vimawala, and Stephen Gaudette. Special heartfelt thanks is due to my family, to my mother and father, for their unfailing love and support, and to my wife, Thekla, a valued liiend and companion.

Craig Polley

Waste glass has been heavily targeted for recycling efforts by various municipalities. Not a l l waste glass can be recycled into new glass, however, and alternative methods must be found for utilization of this waste glass; one possible use for this glass is as aggregate in portland cement concrete. An experimental research program was conducted to identlfy characteristics of waste glass that produce satisfactory concrete for pavement applications, to document the alkah-silica reactivity (ASR) of waste glass aggregate and determine means of mitigating this ASR, and to determine the effects of waste glass aggregate and powdered waste glass on the strength and durability of concrete. The performance of waste glass/fly ash concrete was evaluated, and experimental work conducted by the author, results of others at the University of Wisconsin, and other researchers' pubhhed results were used to synthesize conclusions about the processes and m e c b m s of ASR and strength development in waste glass/fly ash concrete. The research was conducted in several distinct phases: a study of the interaction of coarse and fine glass with fly ash and their effect on strength and durability, a field trial to study several of the most promising mixes under field conditions, a laboratory test of the possible use of finely ground glass as a cement supplement, and a series of accelerated ASR expansion mortar bar tests. Evaluation of the experimental mixes included consideration of compressive strength, fr-eezdthaw resistance, and resistance to ASR deterioration at ages fiom one month to three years. Some study of the interactions between the experimental materials and air-entraining admixtures, water-reducing admixtures, fly ash and fine powdered waste glass was included to aid application of the conclusions to pavement trials. It w& determined that the effects of glass aggregate on strength may be divided into three separate effects: (1) water demand of glass aggregate; (2) interaction with strength developmnt by fly ash;

and (3) intrinsic effects of glass aggregate, including particle strength and paste-aggregate.bond. The combined effect may range between an 80% loss in strength and a slight (=I% - 5%) gain in strength as compared to the control, dependmg on the form and gradation of the glass and the type of cemnt used. Freeze-thaw durability was found to be promising; ASR is demonstrated, mitigation can be provided by judicious use of fly ash.

CONCREIE BEHAVIOR

HYDRATION - COMP~SITION AND M,~CROSTRU(-TURE

CHAPTER 3 - METHODS AND MATERIALS

MATERIALS AGGREGATES ADMUC~URE~

C E M E N T S ,

FLY ASHES AND POWDEREDGLASS

CHEMICAL

H R N E G II 'S

AND S'IRENGTH D ~ P M E N T STRENGTH OVERVIEW -Low-ALKALIMIXES - STRENGTH OVERVIEW -MODERATEALKALIMIXES- 0n-m OBSERVA~NS - DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH -LowALKALI MIXES - DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH - MODERATE-ALKALI MIXES RELATIONTO GLASS CONTENTAND FORM - RELATION TO FLY ASH CONTENT AND FORM - RELATION TO POWDEREDGLASSCONTENT

&KALI-SILICA ~EACTIVITY AND D U R A B ~

OVERVIEW OF CON^ PRISMEXPANSION AND RELAn0N TO &SS ACCELERATED ASR SERIES RESULTS

C O m AND

vii

CHAPTER 5 - ANALYSIS OF DATA AND DISCUSSION

EFFECTS OF GLASS AGGREGATE
STRENGTH - CAUSES OF STRENGTH REDUCTION AND VARIATION - DURABILITY - EFFEC~SOFFLY ASH - BEHAVIOR DURING PROCESSING AND IN F R E S H CON^ AND WATER DEMAND- EFFECTSOF PARTICLE SHAPE AND TJXWRE - EFSXTSOF GLASSAGGREGATE GRADATION - E m s OF POWDERED GLASS

m OF I N I E R A ~ O N S

BETWFEN

MATERIALS

EFFEIXS OF INTERACTIONS WITH GLASS ON BEHAVIOR OF RY ASH WITHAIR-ENTRAINING ADMIXTURE AND WATER REDUCER

hIERACTI0NS

~KALI-SILICA REACTVlTY AND GATI ION

R E A ~ Y - TE~~IMUMBEHAVIOR - EFFECrs OF FLY ASH ON ASR M~GATION

RECOMMENDA~ONS
OPTIMAL PROPORTIONS OF WASTE GLASSAGGREGATE AND FLY ASH - USEOF WASTE G~ASSAGGREGATE - USEOF MINERAL ADMIXTUFWIN W m GLASS AGGREGATE CON^ - ASR TBTPROCEDURES - AREASREQUIRINGFURTHERRESEARCH

CHAPTER 6 - SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS M)R APPLICATION

CONCLUSIONS

STRENGTH - DURABILITY - ASR R E A ~ Y GLASS - ~ S O F F L Y A S H

E m a s OF POWDERED

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.1

APPENDIX 3.3 APPENDIX 4.1

VARIABLE PARAMEIERS OF THE A C C E L E RASR A~

EXPANSION MORTAR MIXES COMPRES~IVE sm

APPENDIX4.2
APPENDIX 4.3
APPENDIX 4.4 APPENDIX 4.5

m RESULTS

CONCREIE PRISM ASR EXPANSION RESULTS

FREmEmAwRESULTS

APPENDIX4.6

ACC-W

ASR EXPANSION RESULTS

PHOTOMICROGRAPHOF GLASS A G G R E G A T E ,D

0.6 MM

TRPAR'lTIE COMPOS~ON mMIS OF THESYSTEMSCAO-AL~O~-SIO~ AND CAO-NA20,-S102

GRADATION OF NATURALGRAVELS A AND B, COARSE GLASSES CA, CB,CC, CD AND CE

GRADATION OF N A T U R A L SANDS A AND B, ACCELERATED GRADATION, FINE GLASSES FA, FB, FC, FD AND FE

GRADATION OF NATURAL SANDS A AND B, FINE GLASSES FF, FG, FH,

Fl ANDFJ
WATER DEMAND BY GLASS AGGREGATE C O N T E N T
WA'IER D E M A N D BY

ASHCONTENT

WATER DEMAND BY POWDERED GLASS C O N T E N T

S'IRENGTHOVERVIEW -LOW-ALKALI CEhlENT-

28 DAYS

S'IRENGIH OVERVIEW -LOW-ALKALd CEMENT- 90 DAYS

STRENGTH OVERVIEW -LOW-ALKAU CEMENT- 180 DAYS

S G T H

O V E R V I E W -M O D E R A T E - w CEMENT-

28 DAYS

SlRENGTH O V E R V I E W -MODERATE-ALKALI CECbENT - 180 DAYS

~ OF STRENGTH m -Low-ALKAU CEMENT -PINE GLASS

GRADATIONS

D W P M E N T OF S'IRENGlH -LOW-ALKALI CEMENT -COARSE

GLASS GRADAlIONS

DEVELOPMENT OF S m m -POWDERED GLASS SERIES D~PMENTS OF m m - MODERATE-ALKALI CEMENTNo GLASS

D~PMENTO SF m m - MODERATE-ALKALI CEMENT48% GLASS

DWFWENT
GLASS

OFR I S E 'N G H I

-MODERATE--

CEMENT -

RELATION OF STRENGTH TO GLASS CON'IENT AND FORM RELATION OF S~~

TO

h H CONTENT AND FORM

--THAW

STIFFNESS DEGRADATION -COARSE GLASS

GRADATIONS
FkEEE-THAWSTIFFNESS DEGRADATION -FINE GLASS
GRADATIONS

FREEZE-THAW WEIGHT DEGRADATION -COARSE GLASS GRADATIONS

FREEE$THAW WEIGHT DEGRADATION -RNE GLASS FkEEZE-THAW S --THAW

GRADATIONS

DEGRADATION -FIEIl> TRIAL

STIFFNESS DEGRADATION -POWDERED GLASS SERIES Y C BY ~POWDERED GLASS

STIFFNESS LOSS BEIWEEN 10 AND 350 C CONTENT C O N C R E I E

PRISM EXPANSION BY GLASS CONTENT-

28 DAYS

CONCRE-IE PRISM EXPANSION BY GLASS CONTENT-365 DAYS

C O N C R E E I PRISM EXPANSION BY GLASS CONTENT-730 DAYS

CONCRETE PRISM EXPANSION BY GLASS CONTENT - 1095 DAYS

ACCELERATED ASR EXPANSION -GLASS WlTH N O W G A T I O N ACCELERATED ASR EXPANSION -FLY ASHES F2 AND F3,

POWDERED GLASS

RELITION OF S'IRENGT'H TO

ASH CONTENT-MODFRATE ALKAI-J

REQUIRED BY TYPE AND CONTENT OF

MrxEs
A I R - E mA D -

GLASS AGGREGATE
AIR-EFLY ASH

AD-

REQUIRED BY TYPE AND CONTENT OF

REQUIRED BY C0NlENT OF

A I R A D POWDERED GLASS WA'IER

DEMAND WITH AND WlTHOUTHRWR BY GLASS CONlENT

EXPANSION TO FLY ASH CONTENT

RELATION OF CONCREIE

GRADATTONS OF CEMENTS, FLY ASHES, AND POWDERED GLASS

AGGREGATE SPECIFIC G

AAND ~ ABSORBTIONS

GLASS AGGREGATE S ~ ~ ~ MD A ER SY C~ONS ASTM C618 C L A s s r n c ~ n PARAME~FRS o~

SUMMARY OF ME DESIGN SPEC~CATIONS

ASR PER~RMANCE AT 28 DAYS ASR PERFORMANCEAT 365 DAYS ASR PERFORMANCEAT 730 DAYS ASR PERFORMANCEAT 1095 DAYS COMPONENTS OF STRENGTH EFl3m-S
STRENGIHSWlTH WASHED VS. UNWASHED GLASSAGGREGATE
CEMENT AND POWDERED GLASS Chmxnmsncs

FLY ASH C H A R A ~ S ' I I C S

V ~ L PARAMEIERS E OF THEGLASS-FLY ASHS E R J E S
OF THE POWDERED GLASS SERIES

VAFUABLEPARAMEIERSOF'~-IEFIEIDTRIAL
VAR~ABLE -P VARIABLE PARAME~ERS OF THE ACCEURA'IED ASR EXPANSION SERE3

GLASS-FLY ASH SERIES MIX AND FRESHCONCRE~E RESULTS

FED TRIAL MIX AND FRESH CONCREIE RESULTS

POWDERFDGLASS SERIES MIXAND FRESH C O N C RRESULTS . GLASS-FLY ASH SERIES COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH RESum
FIElD TRIAL COMPRESSIVE S T R E N G T HRESULTS

J?ED

TRIALCORE STRENGTH RESULTS

POWDERED GLASS SERIES COMPRESSIVE S'IRENGIHRESULTS

FIElD TRIALTENSILE S'IRENGIH RESULTS

POWDERED GLASS SEIUESTENSILE STRENGIH RESULTS GLASS-FLY ASH SERIES CONCREIE PRISMASR EXPANSION RESULTS

FIELD TRIAL CONCREIE PRISM ASR EXPANSION RESULTS STIFFNESS RETAINED BY GLASS-FLYASH SERIES DURING F/'T TESTING

A4.5.4 A4.5.5 A4.5.6 A4.6.1

WEIGHT RETAINED BY FIEIDTRIAL DURING F/I' TESTING

155 156 156 157

STIFFNESS RETAJNFDBY POWDERED GLASS SERIES DURING F/T TES~G

W E I G H T RETAINED BY POWDEREDGLASS R ERIES DURING FJr TESIWG

ACCELERAm ASR EXPANSION RESULTS

xiv

Cement Chemists' Notation -used throughout thesis C CaO (calcium oxide; lime) Si02 (silicon dioxide; silica) A1203 (aluminum oxide; alumina) F F%03 (femc oxide)

H20 (water; hydrate)

SO3 (sulfur trioxide; sulfate) C02 (carbon dioxide; carbonate) Glass Asmegate Stocks CA Washed, First Shipment of Coarse Glass Unwashed form of Glass CA Washed, Second Shlpment of Coarse Glass Washed, Blend of Glasses CC and CE Washed, Third Shipmnt of Coarse Glass Washed, First Shipment of Fine Glass Unwashed form of Glass FA Washed, Second Shlpmnt of Fine Glass Washed, Gradation #1 Ground in Laboratory fiom Glass FC Washed, Gradation #2 Ground in Laboratory fiom Glass FC Unwashed form of Glass FG Washed, First Shipment of P8 Fine Glass Washed, Glass FG with P50 fiaction discarded Washed, Second Shlpment of P8 Fine Glass Washed, limited, standardized o n in Accelerated ASR Series of Fine Glass for use

CB

cc
CD

CE
FA

FB

FC

D
wlc W/(C

man particle size of a particular aggregate fiaction (diameter)

the ratio water:cemnt by weight

+n

the ratio water:(cemnt + tly ash) by weight

equivalent normality of Na20= [Na20]+ 0.658[K20] generic notation for an alkali mtal or alkali oxide; generally either Na or K (or Na20 or K20) the ratio CaO:Si02in a particular C S n H gel i.e., C:S is equal to the coefficient x in the stoichiomtric expression

Na20e

R; R+;R20

CSH

shorthand for CSmH gel

the quantities of glass aggregate and fly ash used in a particular mix, e.g., 20%/25% indicates that 20% of the total aggregate is replaced by glass aggregate, while 25% of the total cemntitious materials is lyash

xO/o/y%, e-g.,20%/25%

the combition of coarse and fine glass aggregate used in a particular mix, e.g., C A K indcates that Glass CA was used to replace a portion of the coarse aggregate, while Glass FC was used to replace a portion of the fine aggregate. OOEb indicates that only fine aggregate was replaced with glass, e.g., OOEG indicates that no coarse glass was used, while Glass FG was used to replace a portion of the fine %gregate.

A problem receiving increasing attention in the United States is disposal of solid waste, and among the most popular methods of dealing with this problem is recychg. Waste glass has been heavily targeted for recycling efforts; for example, proposals within the Wisconsin state legislature would prohibit the disposal of glass containers in landfills and incinerators if enacted (1989 Wisconsin Act

335). Not all waste glass can be recycled into new glass for several reasons. Several reasons for
this include impurities which are chflicult to remove, prohibitive shipping costs to glass

manufacturing plants, or mixed color waste streams which are difficult to separate into useful raw glass stocks. The amount of glass requiring disposal continues to grow, amounting to 13.2million tons in 1990. Of this amount, only 2.6 million tons, about 20%, was successfully recycled (U. S. Dept. of Commerce 1993). Alternative methods must be found for utilization of this waste glass. Of the possible alternative uses for this glass, recycling into construction materials is among the most attractive because of the large volu~ne of material involved, the capacity for bulk use in the construction industry, and the likely ability of construction applications to afford allowances for slight variation in composition or f o m Such use of waste glass has been previously studied with regard to asphalt and fWbase course material.
The use of glass as aggregate in portland cement concrete has been studied by a number of other

researchers (Figg 198 1; Johnston 1974; Schmidt and Saia 1963) - studying the mechanical properties of the resulting concrete and investigating the alkali-silica reaction (ASR). Their findings may be summarized as follows:

In many cases, the use of glass aggregate produces highly unsatisfactory concrete due to ASR
and poor strength developmnt (Johnston 1974); though this depends on the type of glass

aggregate used (Schmidt and Saia 1963). The most reactive glasses have a high content of either boron or alkali oxides (Figg 198 1).

The compositions of various types and colors of container glass vary greatly, and have
substantial effects on their reactivities in concrete. S o n types of glass are able to supply sufficient quantities of both silica and alkalis for a deleterious reaction to take place, with the concrete matrix only acting as a solution medium (Figg 1981). Below a critical value of cement content and equivalent alkali content, glass aggregate may perform satisfactorily; but the critical value for a particular glass aggregate would have to be determined by test (Johnston 1974). Replacement of cement by 25% to 30% fly ash by weight appears to be an effective means of ensuring satisfactory performance. Johnston suggests that the minimum amount of fly ash required for a given case might depend upon cement alkali equivalent, cement content, and the chemical composition of the glass and fly ash. Using only a small proportion of glass aggregate does not adequately limit ASR development if no other measures are used to control the reaction (Johnston 1974). Concrete with a mixture of frne and coarse crushed glass exhibits slightly smaller expansion than a concrete with only coarse crushed glass (Johnston 1974). ASR involving glass aggregate is qualitatively different from ASR involving more porous natural aggregates, exhibiting a pessimum relationship for particle size (Figg 1981). The amount of expansion associated with surface cracking varies considerably, though a value of 0.03% at an age of one year under unaccelerated conditions might be a distinguishing value (Johnston 1974). The value of the existing documented research is limited because of sparse and generally negative results, and because waste glass was considered almost exclusively as coarse

3
aggregate. The present research expanded on these past efforts with further consideration of material likely to be used in the practical application of waste glass. The range of glass types studied was beyond those previously considered, particularly using frnely crushed (<I .5 r n r n ) and powdered (40ym) glass. Actual municipal waste streams have been used throughout the research - addressing concerns of contamination, washing and crushing, and use of the aggregate by construction personnel. Admixtures used in this study included high-range water reducer, and more important for practical use, air-entraining admixture and three different sources of fly ash. The effectiveness of these fly ashes a s a preventative measure for ASR and the practical effects of the admixtures and the condition of the waste glass were evaluated in the laboratory and in field trials.

The problems studied arise from the properties of waste glass as they differ from those of natural
aggregates. Waste glass aggregate particles smaller than about 3 mm have a sub-angular shape and a smooth, f l a t surface texture. Particles larger than about 3 mrn exhibit a plate-like structure remaining from their original form as glass containers, as well as considerable riability, possibly arising from macroscopic stresses and defects in the glass, either as manufactured or as crushed. Smaller particles exhibit a more regular shape and reduced fiiability. Photographs of glass and sand particles of several sizes are shown in Figures 1.1 - 1.6.

- photo file
-

- photo
-

file

- photo f i l e

FIGURE 1.3.

- ~oToMIcROGRAPH

OF NATURAL SAND, D

0.6 M M

photo f i l e

FIGURE 1.4. - PHOTOMICROGRAPHOF GLASS AGGREGATE, D 0.6 MM

- photo
file

- photo
-

file

Waste glass is an amorphous or cryptocrystalline silica mineral, which may interact with the hydration of cement paste, and which may be expected to take part in the alkali-silica reaction as described by Hobbs (1988). When waste glass is used as aggregate, the principal difference in the structure of the resulting concrete, and therefore its strength and durability, is expected to be the bond f o d between the aggregate and cement paste. The interlocking shear strength between the aggregate and the cement paste is expected to be less with glass than with natural aggregate. In addition, the hbility of crushed glass particles may weaken the concrete structure. The chemical bond, if any, between the aggregate and the cement paste might be greater for glass aggregate due to its amorphous surface potentially allowing pomlanic behavior.

T h e properties of interest in

evaluating the effect of glass aggregate on the structure of concrete are strength and bze-thaw durability as industry standard indicators of performance. Besides the possible Werences in physical structure caused by glass aggregate, other, and possibly more sipficant changes are the differences in pore solution chemistry caused by glass aggregate. Among the reactions of interest is the alkali-silica reaction (ASR), which may cause deleterious expansions and strains in the concrete structure. The reactivity of amorphous glass has been demonstrated by researchers to depend upon the surface characteristics of the particles, including the speciiic surface, which is dependent upon the gradation of the particle distribution. Tang, et.

al. (1987) dernonstrated that the reactivity is particularly dependent upon the chemical
composition of the glass, becoming notable when the ratio ([SiQ]+[Naz0]):([CaO]+[A1203]) exceeds 1 and increasing sharply when it is greater than about 10 to 20; container glass may typically have a ratio of about 6 to 10 and is thus expected to be reactive. ASR must be evaluated and possibly mitigated, and other sigN6cant changes in pore solution chemistry may have to be evaluated before glass will be viable for use as aggregate in portland cement concrete.

Other technical considerations also enter into an evaluation of the usability of glass aggregate. Glass aggregate might affect the use and control of water during concrete mixing; thereby affecting the working, forming, and finishing behavior of the concrete. Variations in glass waste streams might be sigdkant, depending on the sensitivity of the resulting concrete to small changes in composition or characteristics of the glass aggregate, and depending on the amount of variation found to be in typical waste streams. Also, the aesthetics and public acceptance of the resulting concrete will require some consideration, to overcome any perception of glass aggregate as an inferior or unsafe material. Finally, the costs of glass aggregate concrete will eventuaJly require consideration, though this is not within the scope of this research. While an obvious benefit would be the savings of glass disposal costs, the additional costs of grinding, grading, and washing the glass, and the costs of additional water reducer, airentraining, or other admixtures will have to be included in such an analysis, along with the additional costs or savings which might come kom the use of fly ash, powdered waste glass, or other products used to m o w the mix.

It is hypothesized that waste glass aggregate, graded between RlOO and P8 and replacing up to 50% of the fine aggregate, may be used to produce concrete which will perform satisfactorily at early to moderate ages and as well as similar natural aggregate concrete at later ages. The ratio water:(cement + fly ash) by weight, w/(c +fi, may be used as an adequate predictor of the strength and durability of concrete incorporating waste glass aggregate at wl(c +fi between 0.35 and 0.50, the W/(C +fi usable in pavement and practically obtainable with the addition of high-range water reducer. Prehnary results (Cramr and de la Cruz 1994) suggest that concrete incorporating waste glass aggregate of an optimum form shows less strength and durability at early ages and

more at later ages than similar concrete using only natural aggregate. Further, when the waste glass is graded as expressed above and processed as detailed in this research, and is used as 20% or less of the total aggregate, the proportion of glass to natural aggregate has only a secondary effect on the strength and freeze-thaw durability of the concrete, particularly at early to moderate ages (less than 180 days). It is also clear that waste glass aggregate is highly alkali-ska reactive, regardless of the form of the glass, in agreement with previous researchers' conclusions (Johnston 1974). The ASR deterioration may be effectively mitigated, however, by the appropriate use of mineral admixtures. Fly ash of the type and composition detailed in this research may be used to mitigate ASR deterioration at cement replacement levels of 10% to 20% when used with glass graded as above

- a somewhat lower cement replacement level than that found necessary by other researchers
including Johnston (1974). It is also hypothesized that powdered waste glass ( 4 0 pm) may be used to supplement cement in a concrete mixture containing waste glass aggregate. Because of its amorphous silica composition, it is expected that it wdl mitigate ASR in much the same way that fly ash might.

The objectives of this research are:

1. Identify gradations and characteristics of crushed waste glass, powdered waste glass, fly ash,
and chemical admixtures that produce concrete with adequate strength, fieezelthaw and

ASR durability, and usability in the laboratory and under field conditions for pavement
applications.

10 .

2. D o c m n t the alkali-silica reactivity of waste glass aggregate, and determine m a n s of mitigating this ASR

- considering the addition of fly ash or powdered glass, limiting

cemnt a l k a l ilevels, and limiting water contents as possible m a n s .

3. Determine the effects of waste glass aggregate and powdered waste glass on the strength
and fieendthaw durability of concrete.

Evaluating various combinations of glass aggregate and other constituents will include consideration of strength, freezeJthaw resistance, and resistance to ASR deterioration at ages from one month to three years as indicators of quality. Both coarse and fine waste glass gradations and several different glass preparation methods are included in the trials. Glass proportions of 0% to 90% of the total aggregate and four fly ash compositions in proportions of 0% to 35% of the total cementitious material are employed. Various water contents, entrained air contents, and several water reducing and air-entraining admixtures are also included in these trials. The strength and durability of field trials of waste glass aggregate concrete will be evaluated by comparison with typical specification and use requirements and by comparison with corresponding laboratory specimens. This is undertaken to identify changes in the behavior of the concrete under field moisture, temperature, exposure, and use conditions, and to identify potential production problems (e.g., control of mix water, workability, air entrainment, mixing, finishing, curing, etc.).

The measured strength behavior and the development of strength will allow differentiation of several effects of glass aggregate: The increased water requirement to utilize waste glass aggregate - observable in the varying water content necessary to achieve constant workability with varying glass and fly ash proportions. From preliminary results this appears to account for a large portion of the observed differences in strength (Cramer and de la Cruz 1994). The strength of the glass aggregate or lack thereof, i.e., its susceptibility to fracture particularly observable in an examination of the fracture of concrete containing the more friable coarse glass particles. Finally, the effects that are clearly present but cannot be attributed to either changing water content or the strength of the glass aggregate itself may be regarded as intrinsic to the behavior of glass aggregate in the concrete matrix. These would include differences between the natural aggregate-cement bond and the glass aggregate-cement bond, the

possibility of a pozzolanic reaction between the cement paste and the glass aggregate,
which may contribute some strength, particularly at later ages, and changes in the cement paste caused by the presence of glass aggregate, though this is not likely a contributing cause of the observed differences. The effects of fly ash on strength will be addressed, because mitigation of ASR generally requires use of fly ash, and the variabihty of fly ash's effects and its interactions with waste glass may be as significant as the effects of the waste glass itself.
.

To allow the application of glass in a wide range of pavement concretes, some understanding of interactions between waste glass and air-entraining admixtures, water-reducing admixtures, fly ashes and finely powdered waste glass is necessary. These interactions will be studied in terms of their effects on water demand, strength, freeze-thaw durability, and ASR in laboratory experimentation.

12

Documentation of the current state of theoretical understanding of the nature of the ASR and its operation in this particular application m a y shed some light on the significant pore solution chemistry. Quantification of typical amounts of expansion at various ages and the effects of glass gradation and processing procedures on ASR expansion m a y allow more consistent application of ASR mitigation measures in waste glass aggregate concrete.

HYDRATION
Concrete is a composite of various mineral phases (aggregates, cement, fly ash, microsilica, etc.) with sigmficant porosity and water either fdhg pores or bound into hydrated mineral phases. The strength and durability of concrete comes fiom the development of a matrix of hydrated cemnt which binds these mineral phases together. The properties of concrete depend both on the overall arrangement and structure of the mineral matrix, and on the cementitious materials. The strength developed by a concrete matrix &pends upon the porosity of the concrete matrix and the strength of the paste-aggregate bond. The usual masure of concrete quality, w/c,the ratio waterxement by weight, is itself a major determining factor of the porosity, because the water which remains fiee fiom the cemnt hydration occupies volume within the matrix and creates porosity. The paste-aggregate bond strength is in turn dependent upon the texture of the aggregate surface and also upon the porosity and wlc ratio, because h e water tends to bleed to the paste-aggregate interface and create voids which are then f i l l e d with weaker clusters of

Ca(OH)2 crystals (Roberts 1989).

Besides the wlc ratio, a major factor in determining the porosity and thereby the strength of the concrete is the gradation of the aggregate and other mineral constituents of the concrete mixture.

The total combined gradation of the coarse and tine aggregate, cement and other mineral
admixtures ultimately determines the packing density of the total concrete mixture, though it may
be necessary to use plasticizers (primarily surfactant deflocculating agents) to allow the finest

particles of fly ash and silica fume to contribute to an efficient packing structure. Durability, the ability to maintain structure and strength over time, is at least as important as compressive strength in the performance of real concrete structures and pavements. Two possible

durability failure mechanisms that are most s i p k m t for pavement concrete with glass aggregate are ASR, a problem particular to silica aggregates which will be discussed in depth in the next section, and freedthaw damage. Freedthaw durability has been found to depend upon several key factors: entrained air, permeability, and the quality of the cement-aggregate bond (Bjegovic,
et. al. 1987).

COMPOS~ON AND MICROSTRUCTURE Cement is composed of 3CaO-Si02 (C3S), 2Ca0.Si02 (C2S), 3Ca0.AkO3 (C3A) and 4Ca0.&O3.k2o3 (C4AF). The cement compounds are soluble in water, and while in solution CaO and SiO2 will hydrate to form calciumsilicate-hydrate gel (CSH) and calcium hydroxide (CH). Both CSH and CH are less soluble than their constituents, and will therefore precipitate from the resulting supersaturated solution, preferentially at nucleation sites (Neville 1981). The composition of solid CH is fixed while the composition of CSH may vary

with C:S ratios typically ranging between 1.4 and 2.0, but the C:S ratio may be substantially lower in the presence of reactive silica or fly ash. The effects of various materials on C:S may be illustrated with the solubility interaction dngrarn for Si02 and CaO shown in Figure 2.1 (Brown 1989). As C3S dissolves, the composition of the pore fluid develops along the labeled d~ssolution line. Upon crossing line AI, the solution becomes supersaturated with CSH. When a critical degree of supersaturation is reached, represented by an arbitrary point S on the diagram, CSH will precipitate with a composition Q, while the pore solution from which it precipitates will be left with a composition P. The pore solution has thus been enriched with CaO, as P lies to the right of the original dissolution line, and dissolution will proceed along a line through P, parallel to the original dissolution. This process of developing a supersaturated solution and precipitating CSH with C:S becoming progressively higher will continue until the composition of the solution reaches point I. Until dynamic equiliium is reached, the composition of the pore solution may extend metastably along the line IL, but the

dynamic e q u i h h m will eventually settle at t h e point I, where CI.,SH and CH may precipitate stoichioxmtridly h m the pore solution. The usual pattern is that I is approached h m the left, the pore solution composition continues mtastably along IL, and the composition hally settles again at point I, approaching h m the right, about 24 hours after mixing begins (Brown 1989).
0 "

"20

J
Mol %

Ca o

CaO

FIGURE 2.1.

S O L U B IN'IERAc~oN ~ DIAGRAM FOR S I AND ~ CAO. (BROWN 1989)

The hydration of C2S proceeds similarly, with a shghtly steeper dissolution line, initially intersecting the line A1 to the left of B, but to the right of A

The effect of a pozzolan, contriiting reactive silica, may also be illustrated with the use of
Figure 2.1. T h e pore solution composition may settle into a dynamic equilibrium anywhere between A and I, with I being the case where all (currently) available SiQ is incorporated into CSH, leaving s o m excess Ca(OH)2, while A represents the case where all available Ca(OH)? is incorporated into CSH, leaving som: excess SiQ.
w

It is clear, thus, that the presence of a

pozzolan, and its availabhty or reactivity or tim= will affect the composition of both the pore solution and the CSH geL

The alkali-silica reaction (ASR) is a reaction between silica (SO2) and hydroxide ions (OH] which forms an expansive alkali-silica hydrate gel, capable of imbibing moisture and thereby producing sufficient expansive pressure to cause substktial cracking and deterioration of concrete. This mechanism of expansion has been verified by Gillott and Beddoes (1981) by analysis of changes in
refractivity indices of opal undergoing reaction.

' High concentrations of OH- in concrete pore solutions are caused by the presence of Na' and K
ions, because of the high solubility coefficients of NaOH and KOH. One of the essential roles of
the allcalis in ASR is thus to raise the pH of the pore solution, because Si02is relatively insoluble in

neutral and acidic environments, but quite soluble in solutions with high OH' concentrations (Lane 1991). ASR deterioration depends upon the presence of reactive (i.e., soluble) silica, a high OHconcentration, usually facilitated by a substantial concentration of alkalis, and moisture for the gel to imb1Ibe and expand (a requiremnt of at least 80% relative humidity has been established by Stark, et. al. (1993) and Hobbs(1988), while Ludwig (1981) suggests 85%). The consistent mitigation of ASR continues to be hampred, however, by lack of understanding of certain key aspects of the reaction, and deficiencies in current test mthods.

A phenomnon which has been observed and recogwed by a number of researchers is what is

called the 'pessimum' behavior of many reactive silica aggregates. T h e pessimum content of an aggregate is that amount of aggregate (e.g., expressed as kg of reactive aggregate per m3 of concrete) which causes the largest ASR expansion. Researchers have observed that either

h e reason for increasing or decreasing the aggregate content fiom the pessimum reduces ASR. T
s o m aggregates showing pessirnum behavior, rather than simply causing increased expansion with

increased aggregate content, is not definitely known, though there are several good theories as to why expansion may decrease beyond the pessirnum content of reactive aggregate given below. The osmotic potential may be higher for a gel with a high alkali content (Diamond 1975); i.e., the potential difference involved in the hydration of water into such a gel may be higher. This would suggest that increasing the silica content while keeping the akah content constant will result in progressively kss osmotic gels, offsetting the increased quantity of gel produced. It may be due to an optimum R20:Si02ratio at the pessirnum content; if alkah is necessary for the formation of a reactive gel, then as the pessimum proportion is exceeded, the alkali will

become too dilute for much expansion to take place.

In the accelerated test, the pessimum proportion may be due to production of large amounts of
gel which blocks pores and prevents the ingress of NaOH into the interior of the specimen (Shayan 1992). B6rub6, et. al. (1995b) hkewise suggest that the accelerated test not be used for evaluation of the pessirnum proportion of a given aggregate, but rather only be used for establishing safe upper limits for use of an aggregate (below the pessirnum content).

Alkalis are properly those elements occupying the first column of the periodic table: Li, Na, K, etc.

The alkalis of concern are sodium and potassium, both because of their common o&urrence as constituents in cement and aggregates and because of their demonstrated role in ASR. Other

a l k a l i shave not been demonstrated to be problematic, in fact, lithium has been shown by a number
of researchers (Stark, et al. 1993; Diamond 1975, among others) to have a mitigating rather than a contributing effect on ASR.
The alkalis which contribute,to ASR may corm fiom a number of sources, most commonly the

cement, the fly ash or other mineral admixture; less commonly fiom aggregates or the external

l k a l i s in fly ash or aggregates are ini* environment. The a

bound into glassy mineral phases,

which must dissolve for the alkalis to become available. For this reason, significant contributions from aggregates are rare, due to the relatively low specific surface area of normal coarse or f i n e aggregates and therefore low availability for dissolution. It is only in the fine gradations of cement, fly ash or similarly graded materials that sufficient dissolution occurs for sigmficant alkalis to be released. The alkali content of a concrete mixture may be expressed by the alkali content of the constituents (percent by weight of the cement and fly ash), on a bulk concrete basis (percent by weight of the concrete or mass of allcalk per m3 of concrete), or indirectly by the OH- concentration (or pH) of the resulting alkali hydroxide solution (OH' concentration (normality) = 0.339(Na20e of cement)/(w/c) + 0.022 molesiL) (Stark, et al. 1993). In any case, alkalis in whatever chemical combination they originate are usually quanti6ed by the equivalent normality of Na20 (equivalent Na2O = Na20, = ma201 + 0.658[K20]). Typical total alkali contents (Na20.4 are low-alkali cement moderate-alkali cement high-alkali cement fly ash 0.40% - 0.60% 0.60% - 0.90% >0.90% 0.50% - 5.00%.

A normal cement paste made with a cement containing = 1% Na20, and a w/c ratio = 0.50 has an

alkali concentration = 0.7 rnmoledL and pH = 13.7 (BkruM, et al. 1995b).

In cement, most alkahs are bound within the mineral phases, and the mineral phases must dissolve
for the a l k a l i s to enter solution. Thus, the alkalis in cement will nearly all enter solution eventually,
as most all of the cement dissolves in a concrete of usual wlc. The alkalis present in fly ash, on the

other hand, may not enter solution, or may do so only very slowly as the lyash dissolves. Much

of the fly ash in a typical concrete never dissolves, and thus never contniutes its alkalis to the pore solution.

The alkalis which do find their way into solution, meanwhile, are not necessarily available for
participation in ASR, because most will have already participated in hydration and pozzolanic reactions (Duchesne and BCruE 1994a). Particularly for pozzolanic materials such as fly ash, many researchers have produced results which suggest that more alkalis are incorporated into the resulting pozzolanrc products than are released by fly ash dissolution.

This may be an

electrochemical effect of the low C:S gel produced in the pozzolanic reaction (Scrivener 1989). Scrivener has found that the surface charge of CSH is positive for C:S above about 1.3, and negative for C:S below 1.3. Low C:S gel which is developed in the presence of a highly reactive pozzolan as discussed above, would thus be much more capable of entrapping alkalis electrochemically. Duchesne and BCruE's results indrcate that the amount of alkalis released by fly ash is a function of the alkali content of the fly ash, while the amount of alkali which the pozzolanic reaction removes fiom solution may depend on the pozzolanic activity of the fly ash, but not on the akah content of the fly ash; this is also in agreement with Scrivener's model. In light of these researchers' conclusions, Hobbs' (1986a) suggestion that 17% of the total Na20, of fly ash be considered available may be too conservative for low-alkali ashes and not conservative for high-alkali ashes. BCruE, et d. (1995b) found that all mortar mixtures capable of reducing the alkali concentration to under 2% Na20, (or 0.64 mmolesL) will satisfy the accelerated mortar bar test method. Jones (1988) found that the viscosity of the ASR gel may depend on the ratio of alkalis to SiO2; with gels having a low alkaksilica ratio being more fluid.

ROLEOF SILICA
The silica aggregates which may take part in ASR are generally those with an amorphous or a

highly disordered- or crypto- crystalline structure. Such a structure will dissolve readdy in high pH environments and has greater surface reactivity and susceptibility to surface disruption and breakage. Many natural reactive aggregates, e.g., opal, have a microporous structure that allows the reaction to take place through much of the v o l of ~ the aggregate (Gillott and Beddoes 1981). The non-porous structure of glass aggregate may slow the 'reaction for some particles limiting the reaction to the surface of the particle; while also making the reaction much more surface area dependent.

ROLEOF WATER The availability of water throughout the concrete matrix is required for ASR to proceed:
to satisfy stoichiometric requiremnts to develop the ASR gel itself, to provide a medium through which reactants may be transported to the reaction site, and to develop expansive pressure through continued uptake of water by the expansive gel.

In addition, the ion collcentration of the pore solution is inversely proportional to the d c ratio, and
L e m e r (1981) has suggested that rapid hydration of a low wlc concrete will allow little ASR during the initial plastic phase and simultaneously increase the ion concentration in the remaining pore water, possibly exposing the concrete to greater ASR stresses than if the strength had developed more slowly. Also affecting the availability of water are the porosity and permeability

h e porosity of the matrix. Besides allowing bulk movement of water through the matnx, t
determines the mean distance of cemnt paste to be found between a reactive aggregate particle and the capillary pore system. On the other hand, higher porosity does provide space for the ASR products to expand into without exerting stress on the concrete matrix. These opposing influences

of water content may produce a pessirnurn phenomenon associated with water content in addition to that associated with aggregate fineness and proportion.

The effects of water reducers on ASR have been studied by Lenzner (1981), with observations that ASR is accelerated by water reducers at a given wlc ratio, while the ultimate ASR expansion
is decreased. This observation that accelerated ASR is usually accompanied by reduced ultimate

expansion is in agreement with Jones (1988) and others.

GEL FORMATION
The development of alkali-silica gel may be d e s c n i as a reaction in which alkali ions and
hydroxyl ions enter reactive silica grains, leaving behind ca2', based on work by Chatterji, et al. (1989): Reactive silica + 2 Na'

+ Ca(OH)2 (aq) + aq + Sodium silica complex + ca2'+ aq

K? may replace Na' in the above reaction; and it may be noted that the possibility of this reaction
and its rate will depend on the available concentrations of reactive silica, alkalis and Ca(OH)2 in solution. This gel has been d e m i by Regourd, et al. (198 1) as having a structure and texture to CSH developed from cemnt hydration, though with observed C:S ratios between 0.2 and 1.O.
MECHANISM OF EXPANSION AND DJ~ERIoRATIoN

The actual ASR deterioration occurs due to the expansive pressure resulting from the absorption
of water in the ASR gel eventually overcoming the tensile strength of the concrete matrix, leading to cracking and loss of stitkess and strength. Det-ntal effects due to ASR are dependent upon

both the formation of the gel and the uptake of water into t h e gel and to a lesser extent, the

degree to which the concrete is able or not able to accommodate gel expansion without being strained, or have sufficient strength to restrain the ASR gel. Regourd, et al. (1981) have verilied that concrete made from expanded reactive aggregate was able to resist expansion by accommodating reaction products within the pores of the expanded aggregate.

22
There is considerable experhntal evidence, e.g., Jones (1988) and especially Gillott and Beddoes (1981), to suggest that the swelling process is analogous with osmosis, being dnven by the lower chemical potential of bound, hydrated water versus fire water. Jones further divides the swelling behavior into two phases: stage A: gel hydration and swelling stage B: dissipation of gel tom the generation site He suggests that expansion can only result if stage B is considerably slower than stage A, otherwise gel will be produced and dispersed with no development of mechanical pressure on the concrete matrix. Ludwig (1981) has likewise verified the osmotic mhanism by comparing observed concrete matrix forces with those predicted by osmotic pressure theory.

On the other hand, Chatterji and Christensen (1990) have developed a more thorough theory
which includes but goes beyond those of Jones and others, suggesting that the expansion of ASR gel is due not simply to absorption of water, but rather a net m a t e d flow into the reactive grain including Na', ca2+,OH-, and H20. In those cases where expansion is avoided, they suggest that it is because in those cases silica migrates out of the reactive grain as quickly material moves in. The rate of migration of silica out of the grain depends on the grain size (for a large grain, silica
has to move M h e r to leave the grain) and on the concentration of Ca2+in the pore solution

outside of the grain to react with (continued migration of silica depends on the availability of Ca2+
the exiting silica, thereby precipitating CSH; otherwise silica concentration reaches equhbrium and

migration stops). Chatterji and Christensen illustrated this effect by developing a characteristic constant K quantlflmg the amount of swelling induced in a standard alkali solution by various fine aggregates. They found that K tends to zero as the fineness approaches that of cement, or as the Ca(OH)2 concentration of the pore solution tends to zero.

Several methods have historically been available for the evaluation of ASR and means of mitigating it. Chemical tests, such as ASTM C289, expose reactive aggregate to a standard solution of alkali hydroxides, then use spectroscopy or other analytical chemical methods to evaluate the progress of the reaction. This and similar tests have been criticized recently, most notably by Stark, et al. (1993), as being too lenient and being limited to evaluating aggregate in isolation. The effects of the cement, mineral admixtures, water content, and other variable paramters of a concrete m i x cannot be addressed by these tests.

CONCRETE AND MORTAR PRISMTEST~ ~ T H o D s

T h e consensus among most researchers is that tests should be conducted with concrete or mortar
prisms. The prism test in longest use is ASTM C227, which exposes mortar prisms to a standard moist environment and monitors the expansion developed due to MR. This test has also been found to be somewhat lenient, particularly when low alkali cement is used to mitigate the reaction; for example, this test generally gives good results with low aJkali cement, though they are not always effective in practice (Stark, et al. 1993).

What most all researcher agree on, however, is that the ideal situation would be to test concrete
prisms, because t h e material can then be made identical to that prepared in practice, and no extrapolation of results is necessary from the test m i x and test materials to those of the field concrete. The expansions m u r e d for concrete prisms have still been found to be affected by the dimension of the prism (Curtil and Habita 1994; Rogers and Hooton 1991);therefore standardized prisms should still be used to allow comparisons between different researchers' results. The primary drawbacks to concrete prism testing are storage requirements for the relatively large specirm=nsand the long period of time for the unaccelerated reaction to manifest itselfreasons, concrete prisms tests are rarely used in practical research for these

A test which has been developed more recently by Davies and Oberholster (1987) and which has
now been adopted by ASTM as C1260, is an accelerated mark bar test using a concentrated

alkali hydroxide solution and an elevated temperature to achieve the acceleration. It is now among
the most common accelerated methods used for evaluating potential aggregates. This test appears to be capable of determining the required quantity and characteristics of fly ash necessary to mitigate ASR. Several researchers have further defined the paramters which may be expected to affect the results of this test. Dubberke (1994) has found that the angularity of the aggregate used in the test has a significant effect because an extremely angular aggregate may limit packing and increase porosity at a given wlc ratio. Fournier and Berub6 (1991) have documented the effects of
WICratio and temperature of testing, and determined that cement composition does not have any

sigdcant mfluence, though they speculate that it might if moderate concentrations of NaOH were used. (They found that at low concentrations of NaOH the NaOH pulled the OH- concentration down regardless of the cement alkali content, while at high NaOH concentrations, the NaOH pulled the OH- concentration up regardless of the cemnt alkali content.) It is somwhat surprising to many that this accelerated test works to obtain consistent results with fly ash, considering that the test specimens are completely immersed in a high-alkali NaOH solution, and

the most critical mechanisms involved when fly ash mitigates ASR are alkali dilution and
entrapmnt of alkali ions in CSH (B6rub6, et al. 1995b). BCrub6, et al. found, however, that even

in the accelerated method the alkali concentration of the mortar pore water correlates well with the
expansion results for all samples. This indicates that the method is appropriate for testing with fly ash because the rrwhanisms by which mitigation occurs in the test method and in concrete in practice are still the same. B6rub6, et al. do, however, add the caveat that the test may be inaccurate at hgh alkali contents, and suggest keeping the total alkali content of the bars to no more than 1.25% Na20, by weight of the cement.

EVALUA~ OF N TEST RESULTS

The allowable limit for ASR expansion to be acceptable is an important consideration with any of these prism test methods. Some researchers, notably Hobbs (1988), base their recommndations on the mechanical properties of the concrete, particularly the expansion necessary for cracks to develop (approx. 0.03 - 0.05%). The standard Canadian evaluation methods using concrete prisms is regarded as among the most reliable, with a expansion limit criterion of 0.04% (BCruM,
et al. 1995b). Others, notably Stark, et al. (1993), base their recommendations on correlations

between observed expansions in laboratory tests and observed performance of corresponding concrete in field applications. Their recommndations are between 0.08% and 0.20% as critical amounts of expansion after 14 days of ASTM C1260 testing. Alongside the allowable limits of expansion, consideration must be given to the environment used
in the test, and methods must be used to provide experimntal control of possible environmental

variation, particularly with the longer term concrete prism tests. Rogers and Hooton (1991) have studied various storage schemes for concrete prisms, finding that storage in a sealed box with the prism held above water, but not 'immersed, and with a temperature of 38C gave the most expansion. Prisms stored at 23C in the wet room showed substantially less expansion with some evidence of leaching of alkalis fiom the concrete. They noted that it is important to use a reference aggregate as a control and develop a criterion for acceptable expansion based on its performance. Other properties of concrete have been explored as indicators of ASR, particularly compressive, tensile and flexure strength (Curtil and Habita 1994). but have limited use because of the normal variation in these properties due to variation in aggregate, cement, and mineral admixtures.

Several methods have been successfully used to mitigate ASR deterioration as reviewed by Gillott and Wang (1993): Pozzolans may reduce the C:S ratio of the pore solution and the resulting CSH, thereby trapping alkalis on their surface and preventing movement of alkalis into reactive silica grains (Duchesne and BCrubd 1994~).However, because this electrostatic trapping is weaker than a true chemical bond, this may only slow the movement of alkalis and slow the reaction without completely stopping it. There appears to be a critical alkali content below which expansion does not occur (BCrubd, et
al. 1995b); thus, limiting total alkali content in the m i x should mitigate MR. Duchesne and

BCrubd (1994a) suggest a limit of 300 kg/m3. This method may not be reliable because of the difficulty of ensuring that additional alkalis do not enter the concrete at some point during its lifetime. Retarders may delay the formation of a rigid microstructure sufficiently to allow ASR to proceed to completion without disrupting the concrete matrix. Retarders have also been shown to hamper nucleation and growth of Ca(OH)2 and decrease the rate of hydration of C3S and C2S, thereby allowing pozzolans more time to enter the hydration reactions and decrease the C:S ratios of the pore solution and the resulting CSH before high C:S ratios are reached. Mineral admixtures may reduce permability and thereby prevent water from reaching and being imbibed by expansive gel. Air-entraining admixtures may introduce voids which will accommodate the expansive ASR gel
-note however that this solution may compromise the ability of the concrete to accommodate

kze/thaw cycles. Because of the mitigating ability of air voids, comparisons of ASR expansion between airentrained and non-airentrained concretes must be made very cautiously.

The surfactant properties of air-entraining admixtures and plasticizers may affect the potential gradient between fiee and hydrated water and their influence on surface.tension forces may reduce the viscosity of ASR gels. Introduction of LiOH or certain other alkali salts has been found to mitigate ASR, probably by poisoning the alkali gel which is necessary for expansion to take place by occupying the molecular positions which Na' and K? would otherwise occupy, but not producing the same expansive properties within the gel (Stark, et. al. 1993). Powdered glass might mitigate ASR by acting as a pozzolan according to the criteria set out by Giott and Wang (1993) and Chatterji and Christensen (1990). There are, however, several notable difference between glass and fly ash as potential pozzolans negative:

- s o n positive, others

The fineness of glass w i l l depend upon the grinding method used; the effectiveness of a
pozzolan both for strength enhancement and for ASR mitigation is known to depend upon fineness. Glass is entirely amorphous, in contrast to fly ash which is often an amorphous layer covering a crystalline core. This may or may not be an advantage for glass - Stark, et. al. (1993) have developed a theory that the inner portion of a reactive grain may develop expansive ASR gel while the surface does not, because of the different diffusivities of R+,ca2+and ASR gel. If this
is correct, the structure of fly ash, with a layer of amorphous silica surrounding a crystalline

core, may be an ideal configuration for acting as a pozzolan in mitigating ASR without contributing to ASR itself or contributing the majority of its alkalis to the pore solution. The a l k a l icontent of glass may be very sigmficant -note particularly that in light of the theory
by Stark, et. al. mentioned above, the morphology of glass (entirely amorphous) may .be

detrimental and may allow nearly all of its alkalis to be released into solution, rather than the 10% - 30% observed by Hobbs (1986a) and corroborated by others.

FLY ASH

ASTM standard C618 classifies fly ashes as Class F or Class C with the following general
properties:

CIasJ?
Bituminous Coal Low CaO Content SiO2+ A1203+ FeQ 2 70% History of Good Mitigation of ASR Only Pozzolanic

clas&
Sub-Bituminous Coal High CaO Content

50% I Si02+ A1203+ FeQ < 70%

History of Poor Mitigation of ASR Pozzolanic and Cementitious

Both Class F and Class C fly ashes typically have a glassy morphology surrounding and encasing crystalline inclusions (Fraay, et al. 1989). The ASTM requirements for fly ash will be discussed with regard to the specific fly ashes used in this experimental program in Chapter 3. The effect of fly ash on the structure of concrete is, first, to act as a line inert material which densifies the packing structure of the cement particles and provides nucleation sites for development of a finer structure of CSH gel; and second, after some t k , the silica in the fly ash reacts with the Ca(OH)2 developed by cement hydration and produces secondary CSH by the

pozzolanic reaction. T h i s requires that the glass in the fly ash goes into solution first, however,
which only happens substantdly beyond a pH of about 13.2 to 13.3 (Fraay, et al. 1989). The usual effect for a concrete which has had a portion of its cemnt replaced by fly ash is a sowwhat lower strength at early ages, followed by a higher ultimate strength at later ages. The age at which

a fly ash concrete will equal and begin to exceed the. strength of a similar cement-only concrete
usual& varies from 28 to 90 days, though some may gain strength only much later. Monz6, et. al.

(1994) have found that the effects of fly ash on water demand and workability depend primarily on the fjneness, shape and particle size distriiution of the ash, while the crystWamorphous ratio and particle size distribution influence the strength activity. The strength activity of fly ash can be broken down into two distinct effect: nucleation and pozzolanic activity. It has been found by researchers generally, for example by Gopalan (1993), that the early contribution of fly ash to strength development is primarily due to nucleation, while the later contribution is primarily due to pozzolanicity. Babu and Rao (1994) have found that in many cases the contribution of fly ash to strength during the first 7 days of hydration is entirely through promotion of nucleation. Fly ash is able to enhance the strength of concrete simply by providing nucleation sites during the early period because the abundance of nucleation sites refines the structure of the CSH matrix and accelerates its development. The onset of pozzolanic activity by fly ash is itself dependent upon the fly ash:cement ratio in the mix - as the relative proportion of fly ash is increased, the onset occurs at later ages (Gopalan 1993). Fraay, et al. (1989) refers to this period before the onset of pozzolanic activity as the 'incubation' period of the fly ash, but agrees that the fly ash does contribute to strength by acting as precipitation nuclei during this period. A high alkali content in either the cement or the tly ash, or both, will accelerate the onset of pomlanic activity, because as the alkalis are released into solution, the pH of the solution will be increased, leading to a more rapid dissolution of the glass phases in the fly ash
wlc ratio

may also contribute to this effect, because a lower wlc ratio will result in a smaller volume of pore water and higher concentrations of aJl of the chemical species (Fraay, et al. 1989). Fraay, et al.

also note that the precipitation of CSH around a fly ash particle, either due to nucleation before the
onset of pozzolanicity, or due to the pozzolanic reaction, will slow the dissolution of the fly ash
glass network. As the pozzolanic reaction continues into its later stages, the pH will tend to

increase because of the continuing decrease in h e water, and the S i a from the fly ash particle

30 will travel ever further distances before hally combining with CaO and precipitating as hydrated CSH, leading to a more and more fmely re6ned pore structure in the cqncrete.
FLYASH IN MTIIGATION OF W - S I L I C A REACTION

The effect of fly ash primarily of interest in this research is mitigation of ASR deterioration. There

are two prevalent reasdm for this effect:

The pozzolanic reaction lowers the C:S ratio of the pore solution and the CSH gel leading to
electrostatic trapping of alkali ions, and of OH- ions and c ~ Z 'ions are consumed in the pozzolanic reaction. A third possible reason - fly ash causing a reduction in pemability and thereby limiting water transport - is difticult to defend because of the clear.&penden= of ASR-mitigating ability on properties of fly ash which do not affect the developmnt of strength or reduction in permeability.

The properties of ily ash which primarily determine its effectiveness in mitigation of ASR are its

alkali content, and to a lesser extent its Si02and A1203 contents (Duchesne and Berubi 1994b).

There are other effects of fly ash which also must be included in a consideration of fly ash as a
mineral admixture. The amount of airentraining admixture required to achieve a particular air content is generally increased by the use of fly ash. The component of fly ash which actually causes this is tke (i.e., chemically unbound) carbon, which is difficult to measure directly, but is indicated indirectly by the loss on ignition. Fly ash may increase airentraining admixture requirements by a factor of anywhere fiom 1 to 10 or more for very high k e carbon contents.

i x . Fly ash often decreases the Fly ash also generally affects the amount of water required by the m
water requirement by 10 to 20%, but lower quality Class F ashes have actually been observed to increase the requirement by up to 30%. These effects require carell consideration, especially

when using some of the poorly controlled Class F ashes, as they may dramatically affect the procedures required in handling concrete in practice.

The availability of fly ash, especialEy high quality ash, is another consideration. Increasing demand
for high quality fly ash, coupled with changes in power plant operation in response to environmental regulation and market forces, has increased the cost of high quality fly ash and increased the quantity of low quality ash used in concrete applications. In many areas, the coal power industry is moving to a scheme of marketing hrgh quality, controlled fly ash at sigmkant
markup fiom the (negative) cost of the raw material. In these cases, fly ash is more properly a

e m a i n s available at cost or valuable by-product and not a waste product at all. The fly ash which r
for a nominal charge, on the other hand, is becoming of lower quality and exhiiiting more variability, both fiom a single sources and between sources and regions (Mehta 1989).

POWDJZRED WASIEGIASS
Powdered waste glass, i.e., mixed color container glass ground to cemnt fineness or h e r , might
fill the niche of a lowcost waste material able to act as a Class F pozzolan with low variability.

The gradation of the glass used in this research is comparable to that of a fine fly ash, though
substantially coarser than silica furne, to which the glass might otherwise be chemically comparable. The gradation of the powdered glass, those of the cements and fly ashes used, and the typical gradation of a silica fume (presented only for comparison, not used in this research) are given in Appendix 3.1.

The chemical composition of waste glass is also detailed in Appendix 3.1, along with those of the
cemnts and fly ashes used, and of a typical silica furne for comparison. The tripartite plots of the systems Ca0-AlzQ-Si02 and Ca0-Na20e-Si@ in Figure 2.2 also ilIustrate the similarities and differences between the various materials.

CaO

F3
PC
0
'

F ~ v A s u F 3
Poworrro

GUSS

F3

SF
.
, . .

SILICA

FUWL

.
. ,

FIGURE 2.2. TRIPARTITECOMPOS~IION PLOTSOF THE SYS'IEMS CAO-&O~-SIG AND

CAO-NA~O,-SIG.

Beside their composition, however, the morphology and structure of t h e respective materials is important to an understanding of their behavior in concrete: Cement Fly Ash Waste G l a s s Silica Funr= Ground Crystalline Precipitated Amorphous surrounding a Crystalline Core Ground Amorphous Precipitated h r p h o u s

It is expected that the action of these respective materials in concrete will depend on more than simply their compositions. Powdered waste glass is similar in composition and morphology to silica fume; but lacking t h e spherical precipitated shape and t h e extremely f i n e gradation, it would not be expected to develop the characteristic behaviors of silica fume which are dependent on these properties: enhanced densifkation of the transition zone, water reduction in concert with hlgkrange water reducers, and microfiller effixts below the size range of cement and ly ash particles and therefore within the cement and fly ash packing matrix Goldman and Bentur (1993)

have performed some research to separate these different effects of silica fume, hdmg that an inert filler (inactive carbon black) was able to reproduce the microfiller effect especially characteristic of silica fume only when present in particles smaller than 0.073 p - smaller than the effective gradation of either fly ash or the powdered glass. Likewise for the water reducing effect - it is a general consensus (see Kheder and Abou-Zeid (1994) for a detailed discussion) that silica fume exhibits its water reducing abhty afker it has been deflocculated by high-range water reducer because it is at that point that the true spherical shape of its small particles is able to have an effect because it is only then that the particles are acting individually in the rheology of the paste. This understanding would suggest that powdered glass, with a ground rather than precipitated structure, would not exhibit this same behavior. Silica fUme is also commonly observed to be more cohesive than non-silica fume concrete, and produces less bleeding (Scrivener 1989). This behavior might be duplicated by powdered glass because it adsorbs water in much the s a m way, ie. by removing water fiom the larger scale interfaces where it can contribute to bleeding and prevent cohesion; without the extremly fine particles found in silica fume, this effect might be less dramatic, however.

The effects of powdered glass on ASR are expected to derive fiom its pozzolanic and
compositional characteristics: its content of active SiG and resulting pozzolanic activity, its effective alkali content, and its specific surface and dissolution behavior.

CHAPTER 3 - METHODS AND MATERIALS

The experimental program was conducted in several phases by various researchers: (a) a study of

the interaction of both coarse and fine waste glass aggregate and fly ash (the Glass-Fly Ash Series), (b) a field trial in which the most promising mixes from the Glass-Fly Ash Series were used in a sidewalk (the Field Trial), (c) a controlled laboratory test of the possible use of finely ground glass as a cemnt supplemnt (the Powdered Glass Series), (d) and paralleling several of the mixes in each of the previous series and fUrther examining the potential ASR interaction of glass and fly ash, (e) a series of accelerated ASR expansion mortar bar tests (the Accelerated ASR Series). The Glass-Fly Ash Series began with a broad study to identlfy the effects of various proportions of glass and fly ash on compressive strength and ASR (Phase-I). This first phase was conducted by Guadette and Vimawala at the University of Wisconsin (Gaudette 1993; Vimawala 1992). As the optimum proportions were refined in the subsequent phases, fi-eeze-thaw resistance, tensile
'

strength, air entrainment, and water reducing admixtures were added to the experimental program (Phase-II). The second phase was planned and begun by Cramer, Vimawala and Gaudette, with the author joining the experimental effort during the implemntation of Phase-11. The experimntal work subsequent to Phase-II was conducted by the author, some in cooperation with others including Cramer, Bakke, Carpenter and Jackson.

Prehmary to Phase-I, work was performed to obtain waste glass aggregate and to wash and
grade the aggregate, to obtain the moderate-alkali cemnt used in Phase-I, and to research potential use of Class C and Class F fly ashes to mitigate the expected ASR deterioration due to the glass aggegate.

In Phase-I, the test matrix combined glass aggregate at 0%, 12%, 24%, 36%, 48% and 90%
replacemnt of natural coarse and line aggregate by weight, and fly ash at 0%, 20%, 25%, 30% and 35% replacement of cemnt by weight, for a total of 30 mixes. Each mix was represented by four replicate batches. Additional expekntal series were conducted during Phase-I to

investigate the effects of Class C vs. Class F fly ash and the effects of washed vs. unwashed glass aggregate. No chemical adrnktures were used during these experimental series. It was intended that this study would identlfy promising mixes for more intensive investigation and is d e m i in the proposal by de la Cruz and Cramer (1991).
As Phase-I was nearing completion, Phase-II laboratory trials were conducted with those

proportions of glass and fly ash which showed the most promise

- specifically testing glass

aggregate replacementifly ash replacement ratios of 0%/0%, O%/25%, 12%/20%, 20%/20%, 24%/25%, 24%/30% and 36%/25%. The expehntal program was expanded at this point to include kze-thaw resistance and longer-term strength and ASR testing and the effects of airentraining and water reducing admixtures. As the optimal mix proportions were fi.uther narrowed at this stage, other sources and processing regimes were included for the glass aggregate, hlghrange water reducer and liner and more limited glass gradations were introduced in some of the

m i x e s (O%/O%, O%l25%, 20%/20% and 24%/25%), and several alternative sources of fly ash
were included (de la Cruz and Cramer 1991). Experimental control was provided by mixes with O%/O%, no water reducer; 0%/0%, high-range water reducer; and 0%/25%, high-range water reducer. The initial mixes for Phase-I1 were selected by Gaudette (1993) according to criteria of a

minimum 28-day strength of 2500 psi (17.2 MPa) and a maximum ASR expansion of 0.008%
after 180 days. After examining the results, fiom Phase-I, Gaudette found it necessary to relax these criteria somewhat, and the mixes finally sekted (noted above) had 28-day strengths between 14.5 MPa and 21.2 MPa, and 180-day expansion values between 0.008% and 0.01 1%.

It was from the Phase-I1 laboratory mixes that candidates were selected for the Field Trial. Based on the results of all of the previous laboratory studies, the Field Trial was begun to test the usability and performance of the concrete under typical site conditions. A sidewalk was constructed with various trial sections including glassfly ash replacement fractions of 0%/0%, 0%/20%, 10%/15%, 20%/20% and 20%/25%, and two types of fly ash A J of these sections included air entrainmnt, and glass aggregate within a limited, fine gradation range; and a l l except the 0%/0% control section included high-range water reducer. Further work was then conducted in the laboratory to study the effects of powdered glass with a

mean particle size of approximately 45 ~ u nprepared ; fiom the glass aggregate stock by grinding in
a ball grinder. This material was treated as a cement supplement, supplementing the cement by 0%, 1%, 2.5%, 5%, 10% and 20% by weight, alI in mixes prepared with a wl(c +fi ratio of 0.43, 20% glass aggregate and no fly ash A summary of all of the concrete mixes, both laboratory and field tnal, is provided in Appendix 3.2. The Accelerated ASR Series used mortar prisms stored at elevated temperatures in concentrated NaOH solution to develop ASR deterioration within seven to fourteen days. Prelirmnary work investigated and documented the ASR reactivity of glass aggregate, and provided baselines for several evaluation of the accelerated ASR results. Subsequent series were used to determine the pessimurn content of glass aggregate, to investigate the effectiveness of powdered glass and fly ash

in mitigating ASR at the pessimum content, and to parallel the Field Trial and Powdered Glass
Series concrete mixes, as well as several selected concrete mixes fiom the Glass-Fly Ash Series. A summary of all of the accelerated ASR mixes is provided in Appendix 3.3.

AGGRFGATES

The natural aggregates stocked in the laboratory were used in the laboratory portion of the
research The coarse aggregate was a mixture of washed river gravel and crushed gravel; while the fine aggregate was entirely washed river sand.' The aggregates used during the fmt portion of d r i a l s and during the later research, and the research differed somewhat fiom those used in the f ~ l t is denoted as aggregate A and aggregate B in the appendices. The moisture content of the natural aggregate was tested for later use in calculating the resulting d ( c +j)ratio; with the exception of

the Powdered Glass Series, for which the aggregate was oven dried and used in a dry condition to
ensure a constant d ( c +j)over the entire series. Glass aggregate was crushed container glass, obtained fiom a commercial municipal recycler.' For those mixes using unwashed glass, the material was used as received. For the majority of the mixes, however, the glass was washed and the fixtion smaller than 75 pm was discarded as part of the washing process. For some of the mixes a reduced gradation was desired, and the material smaller than 300 pm was removed by washing and discarded; while for some others, glass aggregate was ground in the laboratory to increase the fines content (75 pm to 2 mm) before washing. The washing process for the glass aggregate not only removed s o m dust, but also dissolved and removed some organic contaminants, particularly sugars, and removed some light components from the glass, particularly paper remaining from the original waste stream After the

' The natural aggregates were obtained locally through a donation by Lycon. Inc.
* The waste glass aggregate was obtained from M. J. Schmidt Corp. of Milwaukee according to the following schedule: 9/91 First Shipment of Coarse Glass and First Shipment of Fine Glass 2/92 Second Shipment of Coarse Glass and Second Shipment of Fine Glass . 7/92 Third Shipment of Coarse Glass 5/93 Fist Shipment of P8 Fine Glass 8/93 Second Shipment of P8 Fine Glass

glass .had been washed, its moisture content was controlled either by drying to constant weight

(WO moisture content), or by drying to between 0 and 2% moisture content, then testing a sample
by drying (ASTM C566) to determine the remaining moisture content. Standard tests for gradation (ASTM C136), and specific gravity and absorption (ASTM C127, C128) were performed with the results detailed in Table 3.1. TABLE 3.1. AGGREGATE SPECIFIC GRAVITIES AND A B S O ~ O N S . Aggregate Specific Gravity Absorption (%) Natural Gravel Natural Sand Waste Glass

Several distinct shipments of coarse and fine glass were used, and to match the gradation of the glass aggregate as closely as possible to the natural aggregate which it replaced, different combinations of glass gradations were necessary for the different aggregate replacement percentages. The use of the various combinations of glass aggregates in the concrete mixes is summarized in Appendix 3.2. The glass aggregates used in the research are summarized in Table 3.2. The notation in Table 3.2, along with other notation used to describe concrete mixes throughout this thesis, is proiided in the Notation section before Chapter 1.

The gradations of the aggregates used are presented in Figures 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. It may be
observed that the natural gravel and sand used as control aggregates are fairly constant throughout the research; though Gravel B, used in the Field Trial and the later laboratory work, does have somewhat more fine material than Gravel A, and Sand B, also used in the Field Trial and the later laboratory work, is slightly coarser overall than Sand A.

TABLE 3.2. GLASS AGGREGATE SUMMARY DESCRIPTIONS. Designation Description Washed, First Shipment of Coarse Glass Unwashed form of Glass CA Washed, Second Shipment of Coarse Glass Washed, Blend of Glasses CC and CE Washed, Third Shipment of Coarse Glass Washed, First Shipment of Fine Glass Unwashed form of Glass FA Washed, Second Shipment of Fine Glass Washed, Gradation #1 Ground in Laboratory from Glass FC - extremely flaky particle shape Washed, Gradation #1 Ground in Laboratory from Glass FC - extremely flaky particle shape Unwashed form of Glass FG FG Washed, First Shipment of P8 Fine Glass Washed, form of Glass FG with P50 fraction discarded Washed, Second Shipment of P8 Fine Glass, used in Field Trial and Powdered Glass Series, similar to FG with less RlOO fraction retained during washing Washed, limited, standardized gradation of Fine Glass for use in Accelerated ASR Series

FH

FI

Examining the coarse glass gradations in Figure 3.1, glasses CC, CD and CE are very similar, while glasses CA and CB are similar to each other, but with significantly more fine material than the other three and wider gradations. All of the coarse glass gradations, meanwhile, are h e r than the natural gravel, with overall wider gradations; and the finest fiactions in the glass aggregate are much smaller than the finest fiactions in the natural gravel.

Glass CA
.....................

. . . . . . * . .. .................

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

0% 0.01 0.1
1

10

100

Particle Size (mm)

FIGURE 3.1. GRADATIONS OF NATURAL, GRAVELS A AND B,AND COARSE GLASSES CA CDANDCE.

CB,CC,

. . . . . . . .

- + - Accel. ASR Sand

. . . . . . . .
0% 0.01 0.1

10

Particle Size (mm)

FIGURE 3.2. GRADATIONS OF N U A I R 'A L SANDS A AND B,ACGLERA'IED M R GRADATION, AND FINEGLASSES F k FB,FC,FD AND FE.

The fine glass gradations in Figures 3.2 and 3.3 show even greater variation. The natural sands are

finer and exhibit a wider gradation than any of the fineglass gradations. Glasses FA, Fl3 and FC

are very similar to each other, with fairly wide gradations; while glass FE,ground in the laboratory
from g h s FC, is much narrower, with a high content (45%) of a single size fraction. Glass FD,
also ground in the laboratory from glass FC, has a somewhat wider gradation, with substantially

more fine material than glass FE.

Glasses FF and FG (Figure 3.3) show the widest gradations among the fine glasses; nearly equaling the natural sand with finer gradations overall, though their greatest fraction is slightly larger than that of the sand. Gradations FH and R are narrower and somewhat coarser than glasses FF and FG.
. . . . . . :. . :. . . . . . . . . ........ -....... ., . . . ...... . ....... . . . . . . . ..:.. . . ..:_'_ . :.. . . . . . . . .................................. :....:..:.:.:.:.I:".-:"? 1.. .:. . :..:.:.:.: . . . . . . . . . . . ,, ., .. ,. .. . . . . . . .. .., .. . . t! 2': : : : . :. :": " .. .. , . .,... .. . . ,. . . . , . . ... ' ................................................. . ; :.: . . . ..,.. . . . . . . ..,. . . . .... . :.. . :. . .. . .:..: .
......:.._. . .:_.:.. . , ...:. ..
L

. . . . . . . .

L 2 . .

1..

2.

I .

. .. ,. . , . . . . ................................ . ..,.
. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. .., .. . .............................. , , .. . . . ,. .. .. .. .,. . ..................... ........ . . . . , , .. . ., .. ,, , .. ,,. .............................. .. . . . . ...,. ................................

. . . . . ,..

...,

. . . .

. . .. . . . . . . .. '. .. .. . . . .. ., . . .

-Sand A ~SandB Glass FF - 9 - Glass FG . . . . . . --*--Glass FI-I - +- Glass FI - - Glass FJ ........ : . . . .. -... :..'.:.:.*.: . . .. . .. .. . . .. .., . ............ .. .. .. .... .. ..-. -. . ..... . . .. .. .. .. .. ... ... ...
(

. . .. ., ., .. ,. . .. .......................... . . . . . . . . . <.-...

........, . .................. . . . . . . .

. . . . . .,,.

.. . ,. .. . . .. . . . ..........................
,

. .. . . .. .., ... ,.. .,... ... ....................... , . . . . . . . . ........................ . . . . . . . . .................. :.:.'.' ' ' . . . . . .. .. ........ . . . .............. . . . . .... . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. .

, , . .

...

.,-:i

0%

. . . . . . . .

0.01

0.1

10

Particle Size (mm)

FIGURE 3.3. GRADA~ON OF NATURAL SANDSA AND B, AND FINEGLASSES FF, FG, FH, FI AND

FJ.

CEMENTS, FLYASHES AND POWDERED GLASS

The powdered glass was obtained by grinding Glass FG in a ball grinder to an average particle size
; characteristics are given in Appendix 3.1. The powdered glass was of approximately 45 ~ u nits

i x i n g procedures in a manner similar to stored and handled in a dry state and was handled in the m
the cement. Two type I portland cements were used during the research - one low-alkali (0.49 Na20e), and Fly . ashes were obtained fiom one source of Class C ash, and one moderate-alkali (0.67 ~ a 2 0 , ) ~ three sources of Class F ash4, and were characterized according to ASTM C618 (1993). The fly ash used in the majority of this research has fallen roughly under the Class F classification. The principal requirements of the ASTM fly ash classifications (C618) and the relevant characteristics of the experimental fly ashes are compared in Table 3.3. Several of the fly ashes used deviate from ASTM standards in some way; Fly Ash C appears to be the only one which completely satisfies the ASTM requirements for its classification. Fly Ash F1 falls within the Class C limits on pozzolanic content ( Si02 + A1203+ F e 0 3 ), though it is marketed as a Class F ash, and it also exceeds allowable limits on SO3content and Na20,. Fly Ash

F2 is the closest to allowable limits -it is only over by 0.5% on the SO3content. Fly Ash F3 has
substantnlly different characteristics fiom the other two Class F ashes, including its gradation. The pozzolanic content actually falls within the Class C range, and the extremely high LO1 interferes

The low-alkali cement was donated by Holnam Cement Corp. The moderate-alkali cement was donated by LaFarge Corp.
4

The fly ashes were obtained according to the following schedule: 12/90 Fly Ash C WP&L Columbia Station 3/91 Fly Ash F1 WP&L Rock River-Blackhawk Station 8/93 Fly Ash F2 WP&L Rock River-Blackhawk Station note that the Rock River-Blackhawk Station changed its emission control equipment between 319 1 and 8/93 7/94 Fly Ash F3 WEPCO Edgewater Station

with effective use of water reducing and airentraining admixtures and increases the fraction of light particles present. P S . TABLE 3.3. ASTM C6 18 CLASSIFICATION Pozzolanic so3 Content 15% Fly Ash F1 Fly Ash F2 Fly ~ s F3 h Powdered Glass ASTM Class C Fly Ash C 68.0% 76.4% 61.2%
. =

Loss on Ignition (LOU 5 6% 0.2% 3.8% 15.2% none

Na20,
1 1.5%
= 1.7% = 1.1% = 0.8% = 5%

9.4% 5.5% 0.7% none 15% 2.4%

73%

- 16%

50% - 70% 64.5%

< 6%
0.2%

5 1.5%
= 0.5%

Complete details of the compositions and characteristics of the cements and fly ashes are tabulated in Appendix 3.1.

Air-entr-nt

was provided by a neutralized vinsol resin solution in compliance with ASTM

C260, with the dosage adjusted as necessary to achieve 5% to 7% entrained air. Water reducers included a high-range water reducer (a modified naphthalene sulfonate solution, in compliance with ASTM C494 Type F)and a mid range water reducer (a proprietary solution of dispersing and finishing agents and hydration catalysts, in compliance with ASTM C494 Type A) - both proportioned to a standard dosage within the manufacturer's

recommendation^.^

The high-range water reducer was W. R. Grace & Co. WRDA-19 at a dosage of 3.74 urn3; the mid-range the air-entraining water reducer was W. R. Grace & Co. Daracem-50 used at a dosage of 1.98 urn3; admixture was W. R. Grace & Co. Daravair -The dosage of Daravair was adjusted is discussed in the text.
5

In keeping with the intended use in concrete pavements, the Wisconsin Department af
Transportation Standard Specification for Type A concrete highway pavement (State of WI Specifications 1989) was used as the basis for the r n i x design. To reduce the number of variables requiring consideration, the DOT specification for concrete incorporating fly ash Standard Type A-FA, was not used because the required total of cement plus fly ash for Type A-FA is greater than the cement requirement of Type A. It was necessary to deviate from the DOT specifications with regard to rnix water, because the amount of m i x water specified did not provide sufficient workability with waste glass aggregate; thus to ensure workability, it was decided to spec@ a target slump for the research mixes, with the expectation that the resulting water requirement would be greater than that in the DOT specification. In Phase-I, the target slump was 75 mm; while starting with Phase-II, to more closely approach the water requirement of the DOT specification, a target of 50 mrn was used. In some of the mixes, in a further effort to approach the water requirement of the DOT specification, a high-range water reducer was added while the target slump was retained at 50 mm.

The mix design specifications are summarized in Table 3.4 for the Wisconsin DOT Standard
Specification, Phase-I (batches 1- 139) and Phase-II (batches 140- 178) of the Glass-Fly Ash Series, the Field Trial and the Powdered Glass Series.

TABLE 3.4. SUMMARY OF MIX DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS. WI DOT Glass-Fly Ash Series TYFA Phase-I Phase-I1 Total Cement and Hy Ash (kg/m3) Total Aggregate (kg/m3) Fine Aggregate, % of total aggregate Glass Aggregate, % of total aggregate Fine Glass Aggregate, 136% Replacement Mixes Fine Glass Aggregate, 24.8% Replacement Mixes Class F Fly Ash, % of total cement and fly ash Powdered Glass, % of cement
Entrained Air

Field Trial 336 1873 40 0, 10.20

Powdered Glass Series 336 1873 40 0,20

336 1873 35-45 None

336 1873 40 0, 12,24, 36,48,90 35% of total glass aggregate 20% of total glass aggregate 0,20,25, 30,35 None None None For 75 mrn slump

336 1873 40 0, 12,20, 24,36 35% of total glass aggregate NIA

N/A

100% of total glass aggregate N/A

100% of total glass aggregate N/A

N/A

None

0, 20, 25, 30 None 6%+1% 3.74 for 50 mm slump

0, 15, 20, 25

None

None 6%+1% None 138 to 171

None 6%&2% 3.74 For 50 mm slump

0, 1, 2.5, 5, 10,20
'

6%&2%

High-Range Water Reducer (L./m3) Mix Water (kg/m3)

3.74 144

CONCRETE M ~ G CURING , AND HANDLING AND

CONCWTE TESTING

The Glass-Fly Ash Series and Powdered Glass Series concrete was mixed in a 0.07 m3 laboratory
drum mixer in batches ranging between 0.028 m3 and 0.064 m3 in accordance with ASTM C192 and C31. When used, air-entraining admixture was combined with the mix water; while

superplasticizer was added separately. As mixing was nearing completion, a small amount of water was added to adjust the slump if necessary to achieve a target slump. Finally, the slump, unit weight and air content were measured (ASTM C143, C138 and C231), and tensile and compressive strength cylinders (150 mm x 300 mm or 75 mm x 150 mm), fieedthaw prisms (75 mm x 100 mm x 400 mm), and expansion prisms (100 mm x 100 mm x 250 mm) were cast as appropriate for each batch. Strength and k e d t h a w specimens were moist cured according to their respective standards (ASTM C39, C496 and C666). ASR expansion test prisms were moist cured for 24 hours, then demolded and their original (1 day) length m u r e d ; moist curing was then continued for 28 days before storage in a saturated lime water bath. Mixing and sample preparation procedures for the field trials followed the previous laboratory procedures as closely as possible; a 0.25 m3 drum mixer similar to the laboratory mixer was used with a batch size of 0.17 m3 to allow careful control and adjustment of the mix. Materials in the field trial were generally handled in a wet condition, and slump was used for quality control rather than moisture per se, while moisture contents of the materials used were measured for later use in analysis. Each batch had its slump, unit weight and air content measured according to the same procedures as for the laboratory mixes. Tensile and

compressive cylinders, expansion prisms and freezelthaw prisms were cast and covered with plastic for 24 hours, after which they were transported to the lab and demolded. The specimens were then handled according to the same procedures as the laboratory specimens.

The Field Trial test sections were formed and placed by contractor personnel with wheelbarrows and hand tools. Burlap was used to ensure continuous moist curing, which continued for seven days following placing. Mortar bar specimens (25mm x 25mm x 250mm) were cast according to ASTM C305 for the accelerated ASR testing. They were moist cured for 24 hours before demolding, then stored

in 1N NaOH at 80C for 24 hours before their initial length measurement, after which testing
proceeded in accordance with ASTM C1260 with storage in IN NaOH at 8O0C, and expansions being measured at various ages up to 21 days.

Compressive strengths were measured at various ages fiom 7 to 365 days according to ASTM C39. Prior to testing, the cylinders were capped with a sulfur-based capping compound (ASTM C617) to provide a stable and uniform bearing surface. The cylinders were loaded in compression until failure, with the peak load recorded; the load rate was held constant at 13 MPdmin. Tensile strength was tested at various ages fiom 7 to 56 days according to ASTM C496; cardboard bearing strips were used for the split-cylinder tension test with a constant load rate of 13MPdmin. The original plan for the Glass-Fly Ash Series included ASR expansion measurements at ages of 1, 4, 7, 14, 28,90, 180, 270 and 365 days. The schedule outlined in ASTM C227, upon which the concrete prism test was modeled, calls for measurements at ages of 1, 4, 7, 14, 28, 56, 112, 224, and 448 days. These two schedules were combined in the actual research, resulting in measurements being taken at ages of 1,4,7, 14,28,56,90,112,180,224,270,3'65 and 448 days,

to allow both direct comparison between Phase-I and Phase-I1data and use of the ASTM standard schedule. After the initially planned testing was complete, further measurements were recorded at ages of 730 and 1095 days. To accurately measure the length of the specimens, a standard dial

gauge length comparator was used (ASTM C490), with a precision of 0.0001 in. The calibration of the gauge was checked before and after each measurement, to ensure accurate operation. Testing of freeze-thaw durability was done by monitoring the change in the dynamic modulus of elasticity of the concrete with age according to ASTM C666 Procedure A for at least 350 cycles of exposure for all of the experimental mixes and up to 600 cycles for some of the mixes. After curing for 28 days, the initial dynamic modulus for the freeze-thaw testing program was measured, at a temperature of 40F. The length, width, depth, and weight of the prisms were measured, as well as the fundamental transverse, longitudinal, and torsional fi-equencies according to ASTM C215. A freeze-thaw rrrachine was used which kept the samples immersed in water and cycled them between -18C and 4C at a rate of approximately 8 cycles per day. The transverse fi-equency, for calculation of the dynamic modulus, was measured at various intervals. Weights were measured at several times during the testing schedule, and interpolation used where intermediate weights are required. The durability factor, an important indicator of resistance to kze/thaw &gdabon (ASTM C666), may be calculated without considering the weight of the specbn, however, the weight loss itself is a useful indicator of durability. The Field Trial test sections were tested at ages of 7, 28, 120 and 365 days by non-destructive testing using the rebound hammer (ASTM C805), by taking cores for compressive strength (ASTM C42), and by visual observation of the test sections' general condition and resistance to surface wear. The accompanying specimens cured in the laboratory were tested in compression and tension according to ASTM C39 and C496 at ages of 7,28,120 and 365 days. Freeze-thaw and ASR concrete expansion specimens corresponding to the field trial sections were cured and tested according to the same procedures as earlier laboratory specimens.

In the results and analysis which follow in Chapters 4 and 5, the values shown on the plots are
average values of the several specimens at each cornbiition of m i x parameters and provide information to establish trends. A statistical approach was not used because of the small sample sizes representing each combination of mix parameters (generally three to six specimens for each distinct combition). Lines displayed in the plots unite the points of each experimental series for clarity and do not represent a statistical fit of the data unless specifically discussed as such

As crushed waste glass, powdered waste glass and fly ash are posited as an aggregate replacement,
a cement supplement, and a cement replacement respectively, it is insightful to examine their water demand for a constant workability. Any fine material used in concrete will exhibit a demand for water to wet the surface area of the material and develop the electrostatic double layer necessary for it to move easily within the k s h mix; Figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 illustrate this relationship for crushed waste glass, powdered waste glass and fly ash, respectively. The water demand is shown on these plots as the w/(c +fl necessary to achieve a slump of 50 rnm; the variations in the actual slumps of the experimental m i x e s were accounted for by adjusting the wl(c +fl by 0.01 per 5.17

mm of slump, determined by a linear regression (R~ = 0.96) of the control mixes with no glass or
fly ash.

T h e increased water demand due to glass rather than natural aggregate shown in Figure 4.1 is
clearly not linear, showing a characteristic shape for each series with a constant fly ash content with a sharp discontinuity between 36% and 48% glass aggregate. This is probably because during Phase-I the coarse aggregate fraction was changed from glass CA for replacement levels of

0% to 36% to glasses CC, CD and CE for replacement levels of 48% and 90%, and the fraction of coarse glass aggregate used was increased &om 65% to 80% of the total glass aggregate (see Table 3.4). Examining these glasses' effects on water demand in Figure 4.1 alongside their gradations in Figure 3.1, it is clear that the Merence in gradation affects both the intercept and to a lesser degree the slope of the water demand curve.

0%

15%

30%

45 %

60%

75%

90%

Glass Content (% of Total Aggregate)

at all The increased water demand due to replacement of cement by fly ash is approxirnately~linear levels of glass replacemnt, with some interaction with the glass being seen in a greater slope for higher levels of glass replacemnt (i.e., in combination with 48% or 90% glass aggregate, the fly ash itself exhibits a higher demand for water than when it is used in combination with 0% to 36% glass aggregate). The water demand of powdered glass (Figure 4.3) is low; a slight rise is observed with the addition of small amounts of powdered glass followed by a downward trend up to additional levels of 20%.

The increased water demand by glass aggregate and fly ash shows its effect in the strength developed by the various mixes, as will be seen in the next section.
,

FA F1,36% G l a s s

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Fly Ash Content (% of Total Cementitious)

0.42

0%

5%

10%

15%

Powdered Glass Content (% of Cement)

FIGURE 4.3. WATER DEMAND BY POWDERED GLASS CONTENT.

OBSERVATIONS DURING MIXING AND HANDLING

During mixing and handling, several observations of the behavior of glass aggregate were made: Waste glass particles larger than about 3 mm were recognizable as pieces of broken bottles, retaining the flat shape and smooth molded surface of the original glass bottles. Sharp fiacture surfaces and edges were prevalent, making handling dficult and necessitating the use of heavy

l l of the particles showed gloves. Partial ffactures were visible in many of the particles, and a
noticeable fi-iabilityduring handling and mixing. Glass particles between 1.5 mm and 3 r n m showed some of the characteristics noted above, while glass particles smaller than about 1.5 mm had notably different properties. Glass produced by a commercial crusher and smaller than about 1.5 mm (e.g., Glass FG) was no longer immediately identifiable as glass bottle pieces, instead resembling a sub-angular sand. Photomicrographs of these glass sizes may be seen in Figures 1.1 through 1.6 in Chapter 1. These glass sizes were much more easily handled, with no sharp edges and no noticeable friability. During mixing, placing and consolidating, similar observations were made of the poor shape of the coarse glass pieces. The coarse glass pieces were extremely harsh, with the sharp edges and protrusions creating a hazard requiring heavy gloves. The cement paste was not able to coat the edges of the coarse glass particles because of the sharp convex vertices. All of these characteristics were improved by using a gradation containing only fine glass, and still further by using powdered glass. Malung comparisons between materials of similar fineness, i.e., gravel vs. coarse glass, sand vs. fine glass, and fly ash vs. powdered glass, the coarse glass produced substantially harsher workability than similarly graded gravel, the fine glass produced approximately the same or slightly harsher workability than similar sand, and the powdered glass produced slightly better workability than similarly graded fly ash.

During the field trial, workers commented that the mixes with fine glass only were workable and h h a b l e , but it was necessary to add some additional water to the surface of the pavement to produce additional paste during finishing. The dryer mixes were judged d~fficultto consolidate, but with work all were able to be consolidated by hand. Some of the core samples taken fiom the sidewalk did display poor consolidation in the bottom layers. The fly ashes generally performed as expected, providmg similar workability to cement, with the exception of Fly Ash F3. Fly Ash F3 was more coarsely graded and contained many light particles, causing bleeding and segregation of light particles and making finishing di6cult.

STRENGTH AND STRENGTH DEVELOPMENT

S~GTHOVERVIEW- LOW-ALKALIMIXES An overview of strength results vs. wl(c +f) at ages of 28, 90, 180 and 365 days is iliustrated for the low-alkali cement in Figures 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7, respectively. The notation used in the legend in this and other figures may be found in the Notation section before Chapter 1: the first two letters indicating the type of coarse glass aggregate and the last two letters indicating the type of fme glass aggregate; in those cases where percentages are given, the first is the amount of glass aggregate as a fiaction of the total aggregate and the second is the amount of fly ash as a fkaction of the total cementitious material.

i r content by 5% of the measured strength per 1% a i r content to a The strength was adjusted for a
nominal standard adjusted air content of 6.0%, with the non-air-entrained mixes assumed to have 2% entrapped air for the purposes of this calculation (Kosmatka and Panarese 1988). An approximate trend line of strength vs. wl(c +f) of the form

XI^'.^^"^^ for the control concrete has

been superimposed on each plot. For this equation, in accordance with Neville (1981), the

parameter Yis related to the composition of the concrete, particularly the type of cement, while X

54

varies with age. Y was thus fitted to all of the strength data for a moderate-alkd cement and lowalkali cement, respectively, and then held constant for each cement at various a&. while X was used to fit the data to each age. The strength characteristics of the various forms of glass aggregate are evident from these plots. The Powdered Glass Series at 28 days (Figure 4.4) has been adjusted for the different specimen size (3 in x 6 in vs. 6 in x 12 in) as outlined by Nasser and Al-Maneseer (1987). They display somewhat disappointing strength compared to sirmlar O/FG mixes, possibly because the ASR activity was greater than anticipated and could not be mitigated by the powdered glass.

00100
a

OOFD 00m 00100 Field Trial 00/00 Pwd Glass'

,,
A

CC/FE

+
x

OO/FI Field Trial O O I R Pwd Glass

-Trend Line
r

+
m
A A

a
A A

FIGURE 4.4. Sl'RENCirT-lOVERVIEW -LOW-ALKALICEMENT- 28 DAYS.

At an age of 90 days, the powdered glass series has lost further ground in strength development in comparison to similar O/FG mixes (Figure 4.5).

00100
CCIFE 00IFI Field Trial O O m Pwd Glass

+
x

-Trend Line

00100 Field Trial

00100 Pwd Glass

+
+

A
1
A
I
I

I
I I 1

FIGURE 4.5. STRENGIH OVERVIEW-LOW-ALKALI CEMENT-90 DAYS.

The most promising mixes with low-alkali cemnt are OOIFG and OO/FH; these mixes are able to
.

perform as well or better than the control mix trend h e at ages of 180 and 365 days (Figures 4.6
and 4.7), and equally Important, are able to do so at wl(c +fi between 0.40 and 0.43 -within the

typical range of wl(c +fi for pavemnt concretes. With strengths of about 30 to 35 MPa at 28 days and 45 to 50 MPa at 365 days, they should perform very well as pavemnt, which typically attains strengths of 20 to 35 MPa at 28 days and 40 to 50 MPa at 365 days.

i x OO/FE performs fairly well, but at a very high w/(c +fi ratio of 0.53 even with high-range The m
water reducer. Glass FE was ground in the laboratory and has a much flakier particle shape than glasses FG and FH, thus demonstrating the detrimental effect that extremely poor particle shapes may have. The other mixes with low-alkali ce,mnt in the Glass-Fly Ash Series: 00lFD and C E R ,
all perform poorly; with the mix CE/FC containing coarse glass aggregate not only performing

poorly at high wl(c +fi ratios,(22 MPa at 365 days at wl(c +fi = 0.5 I), but even with high-range

water reducer and a large decrease in w/(c + f) to 0.39, its strength changes little ifat all, thus

making its performance relative to control concrete with a similar w/(c+f) ratio even worse.
55

,
50 45

A
0

OO/OO OOFD OO/FE OO/FF OO/FG o OO/FH CC/FE o 00100 Field Trial OO/FI Field Trial -Trend Line

FIGURE 4.6. STRENGTH O V E R V I E W-LOW-~KALI CEMENT60 55 50

180 DAYS.

A
0

A
+

OO/OO OO/FD OO/FE OO/FF OOFG o OO/FH CC/FE 0 W/OO Field Trial OO/FI Field Trial -Trend Line

FIGURE4.7. STRENGTH O V E R V I E W -LOW-AKALI CEMENT-

365 DAYS.

57

The field trial specimens with h e glass aggregate FI, which is very similar to aggregate FG, are
somewhat-surprisingin their results. The control mixes without glass and with fly ash, 0%/0% and 0%120%, perform fairly well - achieving strengths of 41 MPa and 56 MPa at wl(c + fl of 0.49 and 0.36 respectively after 365 days. The Merence between these two strengths is rather small, however, considering the large Merence between the two wl(c + A ratios. The rest of the field mixes (composition 00m)show a similar trend, with all of them performing moderately well, but with remarkably little difference between those of low and high w/(c +Aratio.

I
..................................................................................................
o

.......
A

28 Day Cores ..................................... 365 Day Cores X A 7 Day Cylinders .......................... ................................... 28 Day Cylinders f 0 365 Day Cylinders A
......................

d
I

7 Day Cores

1'

.....................................................................................

A...............

0.35

0.37

0.39

0.41

0.43

0.45

0.47

0.49

0.51

0.53

wl(c +f) FIGURE 4.8. CORE STRENGIHS AND PARAUEL LABORATORY CYLINDER STRENGTHS.

The strengths of the test cores taken from the sidewalk trial sections are shown in Figure 4.8 along with the strength cylinders providing parallel strength data in the laboratory; both the glasdfly ash composition and the fly ash type are shown along the top of the figure for each mix. The core strength and cylinder strength data are fairly consistent along overall trends. The higher strength of cores compared to cylinders is typical of a comparison between core and cylinder data (Bungey 1979) and is due to differences between the specimen sizes. T h i s pattern is not clear in

the early age data is likely due to less than optimal curing conditions at the site.

AU of the trial

sections are performing well at an age of one year. The effects of the different fly ashes enters into a comparison of the various mixes -the mixes with fly ash F3 have a much higher water demand, but are nonetheless nearly as strong as the mixes with fly ash F2.

STRENGTH OVERVIEW -MODERATE-ALKALI MIXES An overview of strength vs. wl(c + J) for the mixes with coarse glass aggregate and moderatealkali cement at ages of28 and 180 days is illustrated in Figures 4.9 and 4.10. The strength was adjusted for air and a trend line of the form for the control concrete was fitted; both in

the same manner as described above for the low-alkali mixes. It may be seen that the coarse glass aggregate concrete series follow the general trend of the control concrete, but fall consistently below the trend line. Furthermore, the shortfall is greater with increasing age, with no concrete achieving greater than about 27 MPa at 180 days, far short of the expected strength of pavement concrete of 40 to 50 MPa. Comparison of these results for mixes with coarse glass aggregate and moderate-alkali cement with those for coarse glass aggregate and low-alkali cement in the previous .section suggests that the relatively poorer performance is primarily due the coarse glass aggregate rather than the differences in the cements.

40

.
A A
A

00100

C+oo
0

CCFA

CDIFA

5 M

= 20 15 "
m

0.49

0.52

0.55

0.58

0.6 1

0.64 CEMENT-

0.67

0.70

+f
28 DAYS.

FIGURE 4.9. STRENGTH OVERVIEW -MODERATE-FUCALI

00100

CCFA
-Trend

Line

.
I

A A
U

P
1 1 1 1 , 1

'

0.49

0.52

0.55

0.58 0.61 w l ( c +f)

0.64

0.67

0.70

FIGURE 4.10. STRENGTH OVERVIEW -MODERATE-ALKALI CEMENT-

180 DAYS.

C)THER OBSERVATIONS
During the strength testing it was observed that the moderate-alkali mixes with coarse glass aggregate produced a very flexible fracture with a large strain accompanying the failure. The low-

alkali mixes with fine glass gradations produced a fracture in most cases comparable to the control
concrete at similar ages. At 365 days, the kacture was along a very sharp failure plane in the fine glass mixes, with numerous instances of coarse natural aggregate particle shearing. Fractured coarse glass aggregate particles were observed in compression tests at ages of 90, 180 and 365 days. Tensile strength experimentation was conducted in the hopes that it would shed light on the bond between cement paste and glass aggregate or on the disruption of the concrete matrix by ASR. The relationship between tensile and compressive strengths was not substantially different for experimental glass mixes vs. control mixes, however, thus no further use was made of these results in the analysis and discussion. The tensile strength data are included in the data compilation in the Appendix 4.3. DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH -LOW-ALKALT MIXES The development of strength by the various mixes is shown for low-alkali cement in Figures 4.11 and 4.12, for the Field TriaI in Figures 4.13 and 4.14, and for the Powdered Glass Series in
.

Figure 4.15. Low-alkali cement was also used in both the Field Trial and the Powdered Glass Series. The differing effect of the several different types of fly ashes is obvious on these plots. Mixes containing no glass and 25% fly ash F1 or F2 have their respective strength development curves shown in Figure 4.12, while a m i x containing 20% fly ash F2 is shown in Figure 4.13. It is apparent that fly ash F1 develops its strength more quickly, while fly ash F2 develops a significant portion of its strength only after 180 days of curing. The control concrete, on the other hand, maintains a virtually constant slope (on a logarithmic-scaled plot) fiom 28 through 365 days.

61
The superior performance of the mixes 00FG and 00/FH is again evident in Figure 4.1 1; though they start with somewhat lower strengths than the control concrete with HRWR, they have a consistently steeper slope than either the 09610% controls or the 096125% control with fly ash. Furthermore, as the fly ash induces a characteristic strength gain acceleration between 180 and 365 days, the mixes with glasses FG and FH, also containing 20% fly ash, follow a similar pattern, but are again able to maintain a steeper slope than the 0%/25% fly ash mix. It may also be noted that while the mixes with glasses FG and FH show similar results in the strength overview discussed

i xO / F H showing above, their strength development shows different trends at later ages, with m
almost no increase in slope after 180 days, despite its 20% fly ash content. The primary difference between these two mixes is that glass FG is well-graded and contains considerable fine material (~25% finer than 200 pm), while glass FH is fairly uniformly graded at approximately 1 mrn and contains much less fine material (4% finer than 200 pm).
. .

55 50 45
h

z 3
c

$40 35

00
V)

3 30
25 20 15 10 100 Age (days)
iI

24%/25%, OO/FG,

20%/20%, OO/FG,

20%/20%, OO/FG,

20%/20%, OO/FH, HRWR

FIGURE 4.1 1. DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH -LOW-ALKALI CEMENT -FINEGLASS

GRADATIONS.

The other mixes shown in Figure 4.1 1 all show a pattern of starting at a fairly low strength, developing strength slightly more quickly than the fly ash control concrete up to 90 days, then slowing down and developing approximately in step with the fly ash from 90 to 365 days. The mixes with a both coarse and fine aggregate and fly ash F1, shown in Figure 4.12, show consistent strength development, in line with both the 0%/0% control concrete and the 0%/25% control with fly ash F1 and sornewhat slower than any of the fine-glass-only mixes.

. . . .

24%/25%, FA 24%/30%, FA.

10
10

. . .. .. .. . . . .. ... ... ... ...

... .

. .
. .

..
.

..

. .

..

. . ,
,

..
.

..
,
,
,
,

..

..
.
,
,
,

..
..

.
. . .

..

100

1000

Age (days) F I G U R E 4.12. DEVELOPMENT OF S M G I H - LOW-ALKALI CEMENT-

COARSE GLASS

GRADATIONS.

The developmnt of strength of the field trial mixes, both laboratory cylinders and core samples, is shown in Figure 4.13 for the mixes with fly ash F2 and in Figure 4.14 for the mixes with fly ash F3.
The trend for every mix is that the laboratory cylinders develop a greater fraction of their strength

before 28 days, while the core samples develop a greater fraction of the strength after 28 days.
This is to be expected because of the optimal curing conditions for the laboratory cylinders. This

effect is greatest for the 0%/20% fly ash F2 mix, suggesting that the hydration as influenced by fly ash may have been slowed down by the cooler fall weather several months after casting. Because

this effect is not as evident for any of the mixes containing glass aggregate, there may be some cross-effect between glass aggregate and the development of strength by fly ash - thls interaction will be discussed further in Chapter 5. The strength development of the mixes in the Powdered Glass Series is shown in Figure 4.15. None of the mixes in this series develop strength well, though the strength was only monitored to an age of 90 days in this series. The control mixes with no glass aggregate exceed the strength of

all of the other mixes by a wide margin. Most all of the mixes containing powdered glass display
erratic strength development, with a dip in the strength development curve at some point in most cases; all but the control and the 10% glass m i x show a peak at some point in the curve, while the 2.5%, 5% and 20% mixes show both a peak and, later, a trough fiom which then subsequently rise again. The erratic data observed here and the possibility of an effect of ASR on strength in the Powdered Glass Series will be discussed in Chapter 5.

FIGURE 4.14. DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH-F'IELDTRIAL- FLY ASH F3 MIXES.

DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH-MODERATE-ALKALI MIXES

The development of strength is illustrated for moderate alkali cement with glass contents of 0%,
24%, 48% and 90% in.Figures 4.16, 4.17, 4.18 and 4.19, respectively. All of the mixes in these

series with glass aggregate contain both coarse and fine glass aggregate. The 0%/0% control mixes and mixes with fly ash but no glass in Figure 4.16 show considerable variability, but the fly ash mixes generally start with slightly lower strength than the control mixes and develop strength faster over their entire curing time.

Looking over the range of glass mixes in Figures 4.17, 4.18 and 4.19, it may be noted that the mixes containing glass all develop strength more slowly than the control mixes, and therefore much more slowly than the fly ash-only mixes shown in Figure 4.16.

FIGURE 4.18. DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH-MODERATE-ALKALI CEMENT -48%

GUSS.

The pattern of strength deveiopmnt with coarse glass aggregate (mixes C W A ) in Figure 4.19 is sunilar to that found by Johnston (1974), who noted that as gravel is replaced by coarse glass, there is a gradual move fiom normal strength growth to no growth or even regression of strength

as the percentage of glass increases. He found, for example, that the ratio of 365 day strength to 7
day strength decreased Iiom about 1.87 with no glass to about 1.08 with 100% glass coarse aggregate. Our results are similar but less severe, with a ratio of 1.70 for a 0%/0% mix decreasing to 1.37 for a 90%/0% mix. The CE/FC mixes fiom Phase-IIin Figure 4.12 display a marked difference in behavior compared to the Phase-I CAIFA and C W A mixes, with strength development nearly equal to that of the control - a difference which may be due either to the low-alkali cement or to the use of air entrainment in these mixes.

~ h Phase-I. k mixes with only

fine aggregate, especially gradation 00/FG, show the most impressive pattern of strength development with a strength rise between 180 and 365 days even greater than that of the control mix with fly ash, which does itself show a very substantial increase during that period.
40

. .

. .

. .

..

..

..

1
j

.. . . . . . . . .. ..
.. . .. . . ., ., . . ... . . . .. . .. . ... . . . .. . . . . ... . . . ., . ., . ... . . . ., . .,

. . .

.. . . . . .
. .

. . . . . .

.. .. . . .
. .

. . .

. .. .. . . .
. .

.. .. .. ..
... . .. . .
..

. ... . . . . . . . .

-0%10% O%/O% -O%/O% . c 90%/0%, CCEA -o- 90%RO%, CCEA +90%125%. CCEA . -+ 90%/30%. CCEA +90%/35%, CDEA 1

... . .. . .
..

... . .. . .
..

..

. .
.
.

.. . .

. .
, ,

...
,

5 10 100

, ,

. .. . . . . . . : : . . , . . . . .. . . . , . .. . . . . . . , . . .. ., . . . . . .

... . . . . . . . . .. .. . , .. .. . . ,
.

1000

Age (days)

FIGURE 4.19. DEVELOPMENT.OF STRENGTH-MODERATE-AWALJ CEhENT -90% GLASS.

RELATION TO GLASS CONTENT AND FORM The relationship of strength to glass content and form may be seen in Figure 4.20, which has been normahzed for a given m i x as the ratio of the measured strength, adjusted to 6% air content, to the trendline at the same w/(c+f)ratio (fiom Figures 4.7 and 4.10). This separates the effects that are intrinsic to glass and fly ash fiom the effects of glass and fly ash on water demand. Notice first that the strengths of the CAFA mixes show a large drop with as little as a 12% addition of glass, reach a minimum at 24% to 36% glass, then rise slightly with additions of 48% and 90% glass. The CE/FC mixes have strengths 4 0 % higher than the CAFA mixes, but being Phase-I1 mixes, this may be due either to the difference in cement type or to the use of air-entrainment in Phase-I1 of the Glass-Fly Ash Series (The strengths are adjusted for air content to account for the effect of simply introducing voids into the matrix. If the air voids have an additional secondary effect, such as the mitigation of microstructural damage by ASR, thls would still appear in the strength relationship because the air content adjustment is based on separate control mixes). There is a clear non-linear effect of glass on strength displayed in Figure 4.20, with a consistent dip at the 24% and 36% aggregate levels with the coarse aggregate. An interaction with fly ash which changes for varying amounts of glass aggregate is also seen, with the order of increasing strength being 0% fly ash<(20%=25%=30%)<35%at 0% glass, reversing to 35%<(30%=25%)<20%<0% at 36% glass, and back to 0%<20%<25%<30%<35% at 90% replacement of glass aggregate. The markedly non-linear behavior, and the interaction between glass and fly ash evident fiom a comparison of the different curves displayed in Figure 4.20, suggests that there may be more than one distinct effect of glass aggregate that is contributing to loss of strength - this will be discussed at more length in Chapter 5. The OOEb mixes, on the other hand, display substantially better behavior in Figure 4.20, with normalized strengths between 0.87 and 1.13 at glass contents of 20% to 24%.

0%

15%

45% 60% 75% Glass Content (% of Total Aggregate)

30%

90%

The effects of fly ash content and form are illustrated in Figure 4.21. These strength results have been normalized to the trendlines in Figures 4.7 and 4.10, i.e. the normalized strength is the ratio of a given mix's strength to the strength of the trendline at the same wl(c +J) (long-term 180- and 365-day results are included in this figure). It may be noted that the field trial mixes (all 00m) show a fairly strong effect of fly ash F2 vs. fly ash F3, confirrmng the observations inade in the general overview of strength results, though there is a wide variation within each fly ash: fly ash F2 produces normalized strengths of 1.61 and 1.12 while fly ash F3 produces normalized strengths of 0.90 and 0.62.

- O%/y%, 00100, FA F2
4

A A

x x

0.40 0% 10% 20% 30%

20%1y%, OOIFG & OOIFH, FA F2 24%1y%, OOIFE & OOFG, FA F3 13,%/y%,CEFC, FA F1 24%Iy%, -CEFC, FA F I 36%1y%, CEIFC, FA F I 0%/0%, 00100, Field l'rial IO%/y%, O O F I , FA F3, Field 20%1y%, OOFI, FA F2, Field 20%1y%, OOFI, FA F3, Field O%/y%, CAIFA, FA F I 12%1y%, CAIFA, FA F I 24%1y%, CAIFA, FA F1 36%ly7o, CA/FA, FA F I 48%/y%, CC/FA. FA F I 90%1y70,CCIFA, FA FI

Fly Ash Content (% of Cementitious)

.
o

FIGURE 4.2 1. RELATION OF STRENGTH TO FLY &H CONTENT AND FORM.

RELATION TO POWDERED GLASS CONTENT

The relation of strength to powdered glass content is presented in Figure 4.22. The strengths are normalized for air content according to the procedure described earlier - note that the entire Powdered Glass Series was conducted at a constant wlc ratio of 0.43, therefore no adjustment for
WIC variation is needed. AU of the strengths relative to the control mixes are below the strengths of

comparable glasdfly ash mixes that performed well in the GlassFly Ash Series; this may indicate either that the addition of powdered glass impairs strength overall, or it may indicate an ASR reaction is taking place that is disrupting the concrete matrix and reducing the strength. Because the reduction in strength appears already with glass aggregate and no powdered glass addition, and because the reduction in strength does not increase with higher additions of powdered glass, but rather seems to reach an extreme value at 5% addition at all ages, it is more probable that the observed effect is due to an ASR reaction.

55 50
I
h

-10

45
w

20% Glass Aggr. w/ & w/o Powd. Glass -- 28 Days 2090 Glass Aggr. w/ & w/o Powd, Glass -- 56 Days - - * -.20% Glass Aggr. w/ & w/o Powd. Glass -- 90 Days No Glass Aggr. w/o Powd. Glass -- 28 Days o No Glass Aggr. w/o Powd. Glass -- 56 Days 0 No Glass Aggr. w/o Powd. Glass -- 90 Days
I

0%

5% 1090 15% Powdered Glass Content (9% of Cement)

20%

,PATERNS OF STIFFNESS DEGRADATION AND WEIGHT LOSS

The progressive degradation of stiffness over the course of the fieeze-thaw tests is shown in Figure 4.23 for the glass mixes with both coarse and fine glass, and in Figure 4.24 for the glass mixes with fine glass only. There is no firm criterion of acceptable performance, but the author's experience suggests that a mix must retain 80% of its original stiffness after 300 cycles of exposure for it to be acceptable for use in pavement. The pattern established by the control mixes is for the stiffness to drop immediately (within 10 cycles) to approximately 93 to 96% of the original sthess, 'then for the specimen to retain that stiffness nearly constantly through the entire test: the 0%/0% mix initially drops to 94.5%, and maintains that through the remainder of the test, while the 0%/0% control with HRWR initially drops to 94% and loses only 2.5% between 10 cycles and 600 cycles.

100

Cycles

- -O%iO%

20%/20%, OO/FG. HRWR 20%/20%. 00/FH, HRWR

24%/25%, 00/FE, 20%/20%, OO/FG, MRWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *0%/0%,HRWR .............................

H S -

IL

............................................................................

> -

...........

...........

85
10 100 1000

Cycles
FIGURE 4.24. FkEEZE-THAW STIFFNESS DEGRADATION -FINEGLASS GRADATIONS

Among the coarse glass mixes (Figure 4.23), the only mix showing a sirmlar pattern is the 12%/20% m i x ,which initially drops to 95%, then loses an additional 2% between 10 cycles and 350 cycles. In contrast, the other coarse glass mixes lose between 9% (mix 20%/25%) and 22.5%

(mix 24%/30%) from 10 cycles to 350 cycles, after an initial drop which is very similar to or even
less than that exhibited by the control mixes. The h e glass gradations FG and FH, on the other hand (Figure 4.24), show degradations between 10 cycles and 600 cycles of 4% for gradation FH, compared to degradations of 2% and none for the two FG mixes, respectively. The FE gradation shows a degradation of 6.5% between 10 cycles and 350 cycles, reflecting its hgh wl(c +A ratio and low strength.

...........

......................................

..............

............
...............

-o--

12%/20%, cE/Fc 20%/25%,CE/FC 20%/30%,C W C 36%/25%, CWC

.......................
.....................

100

Cycles

The weight degradation experienced by the test specimens over the course of the freeze-thaw testing is illustrated in Figures 4.25 and 4.26. All of the prisms show a similar pattern, with the differences appearing in the magnitude of loss rather than showing a distinctly different pattern

between successful and unsuccessful specimen's. The control specimens show better results than any of the experimental mixes, with weight losses of =I% at 350 cycles. The coarse glass mixes, shown in Figure 4.25, are tightly grouped at 2.5 to 3.5% loss at 350 cycles. The 12%/20% mix,though the leader among the coarse glass mixes with 2.5% loss at 350 cycles, is still worse than that of the control mixes, in contrast to its fairly good stfiess retention (Figure 4.23). The fine glass mixes, shown in Figure 4.26, show wider variation, and while still following the same trends in weight loss as for stfiess, some of the weight losses are several times that of the control mixes. Gradations FG' s performances with weight losses of 1.5% and 2.5% at 350 cycles correspond well to their 10 to 600 cycle stiffness losses of zero and 2.5%. Gradation FH's performance also corresponds well (4% loss in stiffness between 10 and 600cycles, 2.5% loss in weight at 350 cycles). Gradation FE's relatively poor performance (6.5% loss of stfiess between 10 and 350 cycles - about 3-4 times the best performing fine glass mixes) is further highlighted here, with a loss of 4.5% of its weight at 350 cycles.

O%/O%

_-

20%/20%, OOIFG, MRWR

............,...................................................

nO%/O%, HRWR

100

Cycles

The s t h e s s degradation of the field trial specimens is illustrated in Figure 4.27.

hey maintain

excellent stfiess through about 70 cycles, but between 70 cycles and 350 cycles, there is an alarming degradation. Using a criterion of 80% stffhess retention at 350 cycles, the two Fly Ash
~ 2experimental ' mixes (20%/25% and 20%/20%) fall below this limit; and while the Fly Ash F2 0%/20%control m i x does not fall below the experimental mixes, it does show a similarly steep

degradation between 200 and 350 cycles. The superior fi-eeze-thaw performance of the Fly Ash F3 mixes along with the superior strength performance of Fly Ash F3 points to a clear difference between the two fly ashes. The pattern indicated by the stfiess degradation in the fi-eeze-thawtests i s that the combination of glass and fly ash in concrete clearly does reduce freezethaw stfiess durability substantially, though the cause of the dramatic loss of s t h e s s between 70 and 350 cycles is unexplained and may be an artifact of this particularly test series.
, . . . ... . . . . . ... . . ... . . . . . , , . .., . ..,....' .......,. ..:. . . . :. .. :. . .:. . .:. . :. , , , . , ..y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . ... , ... . , .......... . . , ... ...

..................... . . . . . .....................
.>..

.........,............. ::; .... i . . . l . . . : . . . : . . i . . .......,....... .......,..

. . . .. ;...;..;..... . . . ............. ..I.. ...... .. .....:....:...:...I.. :..... ..> \:. :. + ; :. . ;. ... : .\>. . . ...,.......................... . . .:.. . :............. . <.%::::. ' ......................... .. .\. . ' . ...... ' . ................ . . . . . . . , , , . . .............................................,........ .............. ...... , ........................... .......................... ...... : ..\ . . . . . . ...,.. + .... :...:...:...:. . : . .... . :...-....\.:.. . . . :.................. . , , . , . , . -. , . . ,................. . . . . ....................... '.*" ................,.. ....................>... , .......... ,.... . . . . *. . . , , , . ........................... .:.... .\?; .:. ............................ O%/O% . . , .. ., ..,................... . . .:.. .;.. .:. . ..:.. . . ..\ 1:. . . . ..:. . . . :. .;. . -- 20%/20%, FA F3, HRWR ............ : : : L .............. :. .......\::I.... . : . . . . : . . . :. . .:. . .:. .:. . ..-, . . . . ..,.. . . .-*.10%/15%, FA F3,HRWR .. .; ..:. ..:. .........-...... .:. ....... .,. .-.--....., . ... ,........ ....................................... ..\ . . r . . :. . . . : . . . , . : . . . . . . . . . - - - 20%/25%, FA HRWR .. .!. ..I................. :. ...................................... \ . , , , , .
C . . . . . .

..

.. . . . , . . ., .. .. . . .. .. .. .. , . ....................... . . ........... . . . ,.......... . . , .. .

. . . . a

- -a

-.-

..

- 20%/20%,FA n,HRWR

m,

.:

..:....
.I
:.I..

~0%/'20%, FA F2, HRWR .. .;. . . . .:. ................ .:. ....... .:. .......... . ,. ... , , ............ . .: . : . . . ........... . . .'.. ................................ . . . . .. . . . .
L

....................................................................

...:. . .:.....................

.i..

...... .:.. . e . . i.. ..;. . . i . .

:. .

I _ _ _ > . .........I..

100

Cycles

FIGURE 4.27. FREEZE-THAW STIFFNESS DEGRADATION -FIELD TRIAL.

See pages 42-43 for definition of fly ash types F1, F2 and F3.

76 Figures '4.28 presents the stiffness degradation of the Powdered Glass Series. Because the Powdered Glass Series included control mixes with both 4.2% and 8.1% entrained air, it is possible to make some observation of the effects of entrained air on keeze-thaw durability: the prisms with 8.1% entrained air drop slightly more during the first 10 cycles (a drop of 7.8% vs. a drop of 5.3% for the control mix with 4.2% entrained air), but degrade less during the remainder of the test (3.4% degradation between 10 and 350 cycles vs. 8.9% for the 4.2% entrained air mix). The 20% powdered glass prisms fail to maintain substantial stfiess, with only 46% of the stiffness remaining after 350 cycles, but it is not clear whether this is due to the presence of powdered glass or because of the 3.4% air content. The other mixes have varying performance, with the 1% and 2.5% powdered glass mixes somewhat better than the control mixes and the rest somewhat worse, as illustrated in Figure 4.29.
100 95 90

10

100

loo0

Cycles

RGu~~4.28 FREEZE-THAW . STIFFl\TESSDEGRADATION - POWDERED GLASS SERIES.

I
0 . ~n
*.

40% --

20% Glass Aggr.

'b

Control wlo Glass Aggr.,

c c d e

...........................................................

30%
.......................................................

20%

(A

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Powdered Glass Content (% of Cement)

FIGURE 4.29. STIFFNESS LOSS BETWEEN 10 AND 350 CYCLES BY POWDERED GLASS CONTENT

The trend which is seen in Figure 4.29 suggests an optimal powdered glass content of 1 - 2.5%, and the trend of increasing degradation with 10 - 20% powdered glass suggests that both low air content and high powdered glass content contribute to the poor performance of the 20% powdered glass mix.

OBSERVATIONS OF SPUG

AND Q

U ~ A T Z BEHAVIOR VE

Visual observation of the degradation during the freeze-thaw testing suggested that the majority of the degradation took place in the mortar fraction of the concrete. Paste sloughed predominantly from the glass aggregate particles, either h e or coarse, with subsequent sloughing of the glass particles themselves as the degradation continued. The comers of the specimens, which had a higher mortar content because of the edge effect of aggregate paclung, were noticeably weaker than the face of the specimen after freeze-thaw exposure.

Based on visual assessment, the Field Trial test sections have shown excellent durability to abrasion and freezing weather. . Only a small amount of paste has been removed from the top

surface, exposing the top layer of both natural and glass aggregates. The top layer of aggregate appears to remain well bonded in the pavement, including the glass aggregate. Additional wear in the wheel tracks is minimal.

ALKALI-SILICA REACTTVITY AND DURABILITY

OVERVaY OF CONCRETE PRISMEXPANSION AND RELATION TO GLASS CONTENT AND TYPE

The effect most distinctive of g h s aggregate and of most concern in this research is the development of the alkali-silica reaction between glass aggregate and cement paste - detected by monitoring the expansion of concrete prisms. Concrete prism expansions versus glass content at ages of 28, 365, 730 and 1095 days are summarized in Figures 4.30, 4.31, 4.32 and 4.33, respectively. The expected pessirnum behavior, wherein the expansion is a maximum at some intermediate glass content, is evident in these figures with a pessimum content of 36% to 48% glass for the moderate-alkalimixes; it is most clear at early ages (e.g., at 28 days, the expansion of the 36% glass prisms is more than double that of the next highest prisms), but is still somewhat evident even at an age of 1095 days. Figures 4.30, 4.3 1 and 4.32 also show a pessimum effect with the low-alkali mixes; however, it appears at a glass content of 20% to 24% in thk case. There is also a pessimum-like-effect in the strengths illustrated in Figure 4.20, with the lowest strengths being recorded at a glass content of 24 - 36%; this suggests that there may be some interaction between ASR and strength development with glass aggregate - this will be discussed in Chapter 5 as an interaction between glass and fly ash. Failure criteria have been defined at the various ages for the low-alkali mixes, the Field Trial mixes, and the moderate-alkali.mixes according to guidelines suggested by Rogers and Hooton (1991). They suggest that no absolute criteria may be established to differentiate acceptable fi-om unacceptable expansion during a long-term concrete prism test; rather, the expansion of a known

innocuous control aggregate without fly ash should be used, with a small additional margin to allow for slight variations in aggregates and measurements and to allow for other effects which might cause small changes in concrete prism dimensions over time. A margin of 0.005%over the

i x at each age has been used as the criterion in this analysis. Rogers and expansion of the control m
Hooton notes that thls method of establishing fdure criteria is reasonable because most all aggregates develop some slight ASR, and if fly ash is effective in mitigating ASR it should substantially e h a t e expansion, not slmply reduce it to a slightly lower level.

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. # . .. ,.. #. # . . .# ..
. . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .

'b.*.-.##
....

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

..

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .# .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

. . . . . . . . .

-o
0

Low,NoFA Low, 20% FA Low, 25% FA Low.30Yo FA ' Low-Alk Criterion Field, No FA Field, 15% FA Field, 20% FA Field, 25% FA Field Trial Crirerior. Mod, N o F A Mod.'O%FA Mod, 25% FA Mod, 30% FA Mod, 35% FA Mod-Alk Criterion
1

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

....... I , ,.

---.- - .r. . . . . . . . . . . .
0

. . .

.+-.

.:

--.- r -

.-

J L 7 7

o +

0%

12%

24%

36%

48%

60%

72%

84%

96%

Glass Content (% of total aggregate) FIGURE 4.30. CONCRETE PRISMEXPANSION BY GLASS CONTENT - 28 DAYS.

1000

.
.
.

.
.

.
.

. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
I1
. . . . . . . .

t 3 0

100

C
.... . . . . . . . . . .

2
c
0

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . .

. . . .
.

9,
F-4
. . . .
.
. . . . . ..

e W
+
.

.
.

- -6$- .
. . .

.-

. A .

. .

. .

t.
. . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.A ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.

. . . . .

. . . . . . .

...... . : . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I
0%

1, >

Low,NoFA Low,20%FA A Low, 25% FA Low, 30% FA *Low-AlkCriterion Field, No FA Field, 15% FA Field, 20% FA A Field, 25% FA Field Trial Criterion o Mod, No FA o Mod, 20% FA A Mod, 25% FA o Mod, 30% FA + Mod, 35% FA Mod-Alh Cri~erion
&

'

"

'

12%

24%

36%

48%

60%

72%

84%

96%

Glass Content (7% of total aggregate)

FIGURE 4.3 1.

C O N C R PRISM E ~ EXPANSION BY GLASS CONTENT - 365 DAYS.

0 0

Low, No FA Low,20%FA loo .................................................. .................................................. ........... ........... .............................................................. -" A LOW,25% FA .-.. .............................................................. :: 1:. 0. " ............................................................ ........... Low, 30% FA ............ 1. .................................. ........... . . . . .................... ....................................... - - .Low-Alk Criterion - "46 o " . . .- - . . . . . .-. n .. o Mod, N o F A T D I D A o Mod, 20%FA .............................................................. ........... .............................................................. ........... A Mod,25%FA ........... .+ .............................................................. ...........
c

...................................................................................... ....................................................................................... ...................................................................................... ............ ....................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................... ..................................... ............................................................. .............................................................. ...........
b

Bc

"

.............................................................. .............................................................. .............................................................. ..............................................................

~ 9 , ~

1 0%
V

I
I s

Mod,30%FA + Mod, 35% FA Mod-Alk Criterion

~ 1 ~ 8 b

:::::::::::
...........
- ..
' ' ' ' '
"

"

12%

24%

36%

48%

60%

72%

84 %

96%

Glass Content (% of total aggregate)

FrGURE4.32.

CONCRETE PRISM EXPANSION BY GLASS CONTENT-

730 DAYS.

81
Among the low-alkali mixes, the 25%/30%CE/FC mix and the 20%/25%CEIFC m i x have slightly exceeded their limit by an age of 730 days, indicating that the combination of low-alkali cement and air-entrainment do much to reduce ASR, but are not able to completely mitigate ASR with coarse aggregate, even with some fly ash. Only the moderate-alkali, coarse glass mixes have reached an age of 1095 days. At thls age, the overall expansion trends continue, with mixes with fiom 12%/0% to 90%/0% exceeding their limit whlch is very near considerably, and all of the 90%mixes exceeding their limit except 90%/30%, the lint; A pessirnurn phenomenon is clearly evident among the series of mixes with moderate-alkali cement, no fly ash, and varying amounts of glass aggregate. The maximum reaction appears here at a pessirnum content of about 36%,with the 36%/0%mix showing the highest expansion at every age. As fly ash is introduced, however, the greatest expansion shifts to the mixes with 90% glass, particularly the 90%/20% mix.
....................................................................................... ......................................................................................... .................................................................................................... ..................................... ............................................................... ................................................... .................................................
. ....................................................................................................

........................

...........................................................................
0

...................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................

..................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................... ...............................................................................................

I

A....

Mod. NO FA Mod,20%FA ........... : ............................................................... ............ .+ ............................................................ ............................................................. :::::::::::: A Mod, 25% FA ......................... : ..................................... ........... .............................................................. ............................................................... o MO~ 3, 0 % ~ ~. . . . . . . . . . . ........... ............................................................... + Mod, 35% FA ........... ............................................................... -Mod-Alk Criterion
0
D

......... .A+ ..............

Do

0 ...................................
D

"
...........
0

] , , I , , / , ,
72% 84%

0%

12%

24%

36%

48%

60%

96%

Glass Content (% of total aggregate)

FIGURE 4.33. CONCREIE PRISMEXPANSION BY GLASS CONTENT- 1095.DAYS.

The form and gradation of the glass, meanwhile, does not appear to have a clear effect on the expansion. Looking at expansion after 365 days (Figure 4.31), it is difiicult to clearly differentiate the effects of glass gradations, cement alkali level, fly ash type, and air entrainment, as they are somewhat intermingled within the low-alkali and field trial series, but it is clear that the mixes with a given fly ash content and glass content are fairly tightly grouped despite all of these variables. These mixes will be examined more closely in the next section to separate the effects of some of these variables. Overall, their is little variation in expansion between the Phase-I, Phase-LI and Field T@ prisms containing both glass and fly ash. Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 summarize the performance of the mixes relative to their respective criteria at ages of 28,365,730 and 1095 days, respectively.

TABLE 4.1. ASR PERFORMANCE AT 28 DAYS ('OK' IS ACCEPTABLE, '----' IS UNACCEFTABLE). Moderate-Alkali Mixes Field Trial Low-Alkali Mixes
FA 0% 0% Gls OK 12% 24% 36% 48% 90% 0% Gls Gls Gls Gls Gls Gls ---- OK ---- ---- OK OK 10% 20% 0% Gls Gls Gls OK 12% 20% 24% 36% Gls GIs Gls GIs

TABLE 4.2. ASR PERFORMANCE AT 365 DAYS ('OK' IS ACCEPTABLE, '----'IS UNACCEPTABLE). Low-Alkali Mixes Moderate-Alkali Mixes Field Trial

FA

0% 12% 24% 36% 48% 9 0 % ' 0% 10% 20% 0% 12% 20% 24% 36% GIs GIs Gls Gls Gls Gls Gls Gls Gls GIs Gls Gls Gls Gls

TABLE 4.3. ASR PERFORMANCE AT 730 DAYS ('OK' Moderate-Alkali Mixes

IS ACCEPTABLE, '----' IS UNACCEFTABLE). '

Low-Alkali Mixes
0% 12% 20% 24% 36% Gls Gls Gls Gls GIs OK

0% OK ----

----

----

----

----

TABLE 4.4. ASR PERFORMANCE AT 1095 DAYS ('OK' Moderate-Alkali Mixes

I S ACCEPTABLE,

'----' IS UNACCEPTABLE).

OK

OK. OK

OK

OK

----

A C C E L E F X M

ASR SERIES RESULTS

Figure 4.34 presents the results of accelerated ASR tests (ASTM C1260) for varying amounts of glass aggregate with no fly ash or powdered glass for mitigation. An expansion at 14 days of 0.12% has been used as a failure criterion. The natural aggregate used in the research is itself slightly reactive, with results just below the 0.12% criterion with a mix of 0% glass and 100% natural aggregate. As the proportion of glass used is increased, the expansion increases steadily to a maximum at 40% - 50% glass aggregate -the pessimum content for this case -followed by a gradual decline with lower expansions, but still 3 - 4 times the 0.12% criterion with a mix of 100% glass and 0% natural aggregate.

0%

20%

40 % 60% Glass Content (% of Total Aggr)

80%

100%

FIGURE 4.34. A C C ~ T EASR D EXPANSION -GLASS rnNO M~IGATION.

The effects of various mitigating admixtures are shown in Figure 4.35, which shows the change in expansion as powdered glass or fly ash is added in various proportions. Mineral admixtures in proportions of ~ 2 0 % or greater provide excellent mitigation of ASR expansion, with none of the combinations containing at least 20% admixture expanding beyond the 0.12% criterion. Comparing the curves for 20% glass aggregate and 40% glass aggregate, it may be seen that the amount of glass aggregate used does have a signiiicant effect on the results of the test - 40% glass aggregate produces approximately twice the expansion at any proportion of powdered glass. The three admixture represented in the figure may be ordered (Fly Ash F2 > Powdered Glass > Fly Ash F3) in their effectiveness at reducing expansion.

400 E350
0 0
X

................................
\ \ ...........I .". \"'

..................

.........
,

6 300
w

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
\ \
\

z250
d
4

40% Glass Aggr. wffowd. Glass - a - 20% Glass Aggr. wffowd. Glass . -- .0.12%Expansion Criterion - - 0 . - 10 - 20% Glass Aggr. w/FA F2 - + -20% Glass Aggr. w/FA F3

\ ................\...................... \

.........................................................

200

I[ .................... .\........
8 8

0 '5; 100

% 150 c

, - - - - - -

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
b--

.....................................

..................................
-

YL

c c u

............................................

. T . : . ,

--.-.-.

? 50
0

.------___
I

...........................

. .-.- . ..--.

-.
" '

..........................................................

.................... ................... ......,............ ! ........

0%

5%

15% 20% Powdered Glass Content (% of Cement) or Fly Ash Content (% of Total Cementitious)

10%

25%

FIGURE 4.35.

ACCELER4?ED ASR EXPANSION -FLYASHES F2 AND F3, POWDERED GLASS.

CHAPTER 5 - ANALYSIS OF DATA AND DISCUSSION

Glass aggregate produces significant effects across a broad spectrum of concrete properties, including the fresh mix properties, strength, freeze-thaw durability, and ASR studied here. STRENGTH

A range of strength behavior was observed among the various mixes containing waste glass,
with strengths at 180 to 365 days from less than 10 MPa up to greater than 50 MPa. The most successful combinations were obtained for intermediate proportions of both glass aggregate and fly ash. The 20%/20% OOIFG mix was among the strongest overall. Among

i x seemed to be the optimal proportions, though the the coarse glass mixes, the 24%/25% m
particle shape and gradation of the coarse glass prevented it from doing as well as the optimal fine glass mixes. Several factors caused low strength among certain mixes: Sugar or other chemical contaminants, where present, consistently reduced the strength by as much as 40%.

An interaction between fly ash and glass reduced the development of strength by fly ash in
certain mixes. Excessive use of some gradations of glass demanded such high quantities of water that the concrete was beyond the range of w/cratios for good quality concrete. Use of poorly graded and poorly shaped glass hampered workability to the extent that either the glass was not able to be consolidated or so much water was used to ensure

88
consolidation that the combined effects of high wlc ratio, bleeding, and segregation severely hampered strength development. Lower grade fly ash with high free carbon and sulfur trioxide contents, especially in combination with glass aggregate with which it has several interactions, interfered with the actions of water reducers and air-entraining admixtures to the extent that the overall quality of the mix was reduced.

CAUSES OF STRENGTH REDUCTION AND VARIATION

The effects of waste glass aggregate on strength may be divided into four catagories:
1) Waste glass aggregate displays a water demand greater than that of natural aggregate.

Satisfaction of this water demand increases the thereby producing a lower strength.

WI'C

ratio of the resulting concrete,

2) Waste glass aggregate reduces the strength developed by fly ash in the cementlfly ash

m i x in situations in which ASR is active. This effect may reduce the strength of
concrete mixes made from typical proportions of glass and fly ash by as much as 10% - 20%. Possible reasons for this behavior are discussed in the next section.

3) The strength of the glass aggregate itself, its friability and relatively low resistance to
aggregate fracture, may be a factor limiting the strength of some concretes.
4) There is a strength loss intrinsic to the waste glass aggregate, i.e., it cannot be

accounted for by either a change in wlc ratio or air content, or a change in the behavior of the cementitious components of the mix. This effect is probably due to a difference
in paste-aggregate bond for a glass particle versus a natural aggregate particle. The

variation in strength due to this can range from a 25% strength loss to a 5% strength gain.

Table 5.1 presents an overview of how the effects of glass aggregate on strength break down for several representative mixes. For purposes of comparison, strength effects shown in the

table and discussed in.Chapter 5 are displayed to the nearest 1%, though in practice strength cannot be reproduced with that precision - in Chapter 6 the conclusions are discussed with consideration for the precision achievable in practice. The values in Table 5.1 have been developed as follows: The strengths given in the table (MPa) are the long-term (6- to 12-month) strengths of the respective mixes, adjusted to a nominal air content of 6% as described at the beginning of Chapter 4; no other adjustments were made. The total effect then indicates how much the experimental mix falls short of the control strength, as a fraction of the control strength. This total effect is then broken down in the three intermediate columns into the effect of water demand, the effect of the interaction of glass on the strength development of fly ash, and the effect intrinsic to the glass aggregate. The effect of water demand is calculated from the trendline displayed in Figures 4.7 and 4.10. The change in strength of the trendline between the wl(c +J) of the control concrete and the wl(c +J) of the experimental concrete was taken as the effect of the water demand. The effect of the interaction of glass on the strength development of fly ash was calculated from the strengths which had been adjusted for wl(c +J) (illustrated in Figure 5.3). The change in strength from 0% fly ash to the actual fly ash content for the control concrete was compared to the corresponding change in strength of the appropriate glass series for the experimental mix;the differencewas taken as the effect of the interaction. The magnitude of the intrinsic effect was then determined as the remaining difference between the total effect and the effects of water demand and interaction, so that the three components sum to the total effect. The intrinsic effect as defined here is primarily

assumed to reflect the bond between the glass aggregate and the cement matrix, as discussed above, but may also include the effect of the strength of the glass aggregate particles themselves as well as any other intrinsic effects that have not been hypothesized.
TAEILE 5.1. COMPONENTS OF STRENGTH EFFECTS. Total Effect of Effect of Lntrinsic Expr. Conuol Control Expr. Effect Water Interaction Effect Strength Strength Mix Mix Demand B o n d ) (MPa) (MPa) (

12%/0% CNFA

O%/O% NoFA

39.5 42.2 39.5 42.2 39.5 42.2 39.5 42.2 42.2 52.5 52.5

26.8 20.2 22.5 15.1 11.0 9.9 23.2 17.1 22.4 45.4 53.0

-6%
-4%

0% -20% 0% -24% 0%
= -5%

-26% -28% -29% -22% -35% -37% -27% -32% -32% -6% +13%

12%/25% 0%/25% CNFA FA F1 36%/0% CNFA 36%/25% CNFA 90%/0% CNFA O%/O% NoFA O%lO% FAFl O%/O% NoFA

-14% -18% -37% -45% -14% -8% -8%

G

90%/25% 0%/25% CNFA FAFl 24%/0% CA/FA O%/O% NoFA

0% -20% -7 % -7% -7%

24%/25% 0%/25% CNFA FA F1 24%/25% 0%/25% CER FA F1 24%/25% 0%/25% OO/FG FA F2 20%/20% 0%/25% OOFG FA F2

0%

-5%

Several conclusions may be drawn from the analysis presented in Table 5.1: The effects of water demand increase steadily with increasing glass content, with the fine glass (mixes OOIFG) exhibiting slightly lower demand than the coarse glass mixes.

91 The effect of the interaction with glass on fly ash is substantial for all of the rnixes with coarse glass and moderate-alkali cement, and increases slightly bemeen 12% and 36% glass before dropping to near zero for 90% glass. For the mixes that include low-alkali cement and air-entrainment (mixes CE/FC and OOJFG), the magnitude of this effect is much lower, indicating that the change in cement is most probably responsible for the difference, rather than the change in aggregate. The high interaction at moderate glass contents along with a low interaction at high glass contents points to ASR as the likely cause of the interaction, as will be discussed in the next section. The intrinsic effect is substantial at all glass contents with coarse glass and increases slightly with increasing glass content up to 90%. The intrinsic effect of fine-glass-only aggregate (OOLFG) is much smaller, even becoming positive for one of the mixes, though this may be due to other variables that were not included in the experimental design, and in the analysis and conclusions that the intrinsic effect for this mix is assumed to be 4% follow. This effect correlates with a change in the glass form and gradation; the relatively good performance of the fine glass compared to the coarse glass aggregate is probably because the dimensions of the interfacial microstructure ( 4 0 - 150 pm thick) are of the same order of magnitude as the size of the glass aggregate particle itself, and so the microstructure is able to bridge over the glass aggregate particle and incorporate it into its structure. The coarse glass aggregate particles, on the other hand, are many times larger than the thickness of the interfacial zone, and present a large, smooth, and flat interface
that can produce a definite plane of weakness.

DURABILITY
To the author's knowledge, freeze-thaw testing and exposure field trials have not been previously researched with waste glass aggregate. Thus this work is useful in demonstrating that the freeze-thaw durability of waste glass mixes is generally promising - it is able to

match the performance of low d c ratio control concrete with optimal proportions of glass aggregate. Control mixes with no glass display slightly more stiffness degradation over 350 cycles of exposure than the OO/FG mixes. Weight loss results are somewhat less promising over 350 cycles, but acceptable for the glass aggregate, with an average weight loss of ~ 2 % compared to 51% for the control mixes. Based on visual assessment, the field trial exposure test sections have little noticeable degradation due to either abrasion or freeze-thaw exposure. Both the 20%/20% OO/FI glass aggregate mix and the 0%/20% control mix used in the severely exposed drive-out section of the sidew'ak are showing minimal signs of deterioration. Durability under potential ASR attack will be discussed at length in its own section. EFFECTS OF FLYASH Because fly ash will generally be necessary as part of a mix design with waste glass aggregate, the effects of fly ash on the concrete mix must be taken into account, especially because the Class F fly ashes, which are most effective in mitigating ASR, are also much more variable than many of the higher grade Class C fly ashes. Some of the Class F fly ashes commonly used in concrete production do not fall within the ASTM guidelines limiting S03, free carbon, particle size distribution, and other critical parameters, as has been detailed in Chapter 3 with regard to the fly ashes used in this research. The observations made during this research suggest that consistent effects cannot be assumed either between several suppliers of fly ash or between shipments of a single supplier - parameters such as water demand or demand for air-entraining admixture can vary by as much as a factor of two. Several researchers, however, including Cabrera, et al.

(1986) have specifically studied variability in fly ash sources and have suggested more liberal parameters than the ASTM guidelines as acceptable for use in concrete.

In combination with waste glass, many of the potential effects of glass aggregate are modified
or masked by the effects of fly ash, and the waste glass can even interact with and moddy the behavior of the fly ash itself. Normally, fly ash has a consistent effect on strength

development, usually producing somewhat lower strengths initially, followed by higher longterm strength. Because this pattern can be modified by the presence of glass, the effects of fly ash, the effects of glass, and the effects of interactions between them have been separated in Table 5.1, above and discussed more thoroughly in the next section.

BEHAVIOR DURING PROCESSING AND IN FRESH CONCRETE AND W A T E R DEMAND

As glass aggregate is received from a recycling plant, it will typically include contaminants: paper, plastic, and other light components of the original form of the glass as packaging, as well as sugar and other chemical or food contaminants. The effects of either removing these by washing, or not, must be considered and its necessity must be clear before it is undertaken, since the cost of washing waste glass aggregate may equal or exceed the cost of the raw glass aggregate itself. Washing glass aggregate before use has an overwhelming effect on strength,

as shown in Table 5.2 where the strength without washing is indicated as a fraction of the
strength with washing.

5.2. STRENGTHS rnWASHED VS. UNWASHED GLASS AGGREGATES. TABLE

(MPa) Strength with Washing (MPa) Strength without Washing Strength without Washing

48%/20% CAIFA (28 days) 24%/25% OOJFG (28 days) 24%125%OOPG (56 days)

14.07

11.17 18.27 25.42

79% 59% 56%

3 1.08
45.41

The differences evident in this comparison include the effects of a slight change in gradation

of the glass aggregate due to the removal of some of the fine particles in the washing process

94

(compare gradations of glasses CA vs. CB, FA vs. FB, and FF vs. FG in Figures 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, respectively). The effect of the gradation of the glass aggregate on strength will be discussed below, but it is clear that the small change in gradation involved in the washing procedure does not account for the majority of the change in strength, particularly since the large difference in strength between washed and unwashed glass aggregate is not accompanied by a significant difference in water demand, which is the primary direct effect of a change in gradation. Even after washing, however, the effects of glass aggregate on the properties of fresh concrete are dramatic: a substantial decrease in slump and workability for a given water content along with a somewhat reduced frnishability and some increased tendency toward bleeding and segregation. AU of these effects are much more evident with coarse glass aggregate or poorly graded fine glass aggregate, but there is some effect even with the optimal fine glass aggregates. These effects on water demand and workability affect strength

as well, because the wlc ratio must be adjusted to keep workability within a usable range.
Any fine material used in concrete will exhibit a demand for water to wet the surface area of the material and develop the electrostatic double layer necessary for it to move easily within the fresh m i x . Glass' characteristics in this regard and its interaction with fly ash will be discussed below along with their combined interactions with air-entraining admixtures and water reducers. EFFECTS OF PARTICLE SHAPE AND TEXTURE The most obvious fundamental causes of the various strength effects of glass aggregate are the particle shape and the texture, which differ substantially between natural and glass aggregates. The coarse glass retains the plate-like shape of the bottles from which it is derived, with the finer gradations becoming more and more regular in their shape and losing

some of their sharpest and most angular edges. Glass aggregate that was crushed to less than ~1.r 5n m is generally quite regular (see Figure 1.1 through 1.6). This regular shape is not assured by the simple fact of the glass having a fine gradation, however -the glass ground in the laboratory, glasses FD and FE, exhibited a very flaky particle shape due to the method of grinding used. The particle shape along with the smooth texture of the glass aggregate pieces are certainly a large part of the reason for the increased water demand and decreased workability of concrete with glass aggregate. Poorly shaped aggregates are generally known to produce this type of behavior, along with increased bleeding and segregation. The coarse glass pieces especially produced observable anomalous behavior in the fresh concrete, with visible bleeding around the glass particles and extremely poor cohesion with the cement paste. The flaky particles in the lab-ground aggregates (glass FD and FE) were too small to observe similar behavior visually, but their higher water demand suggests that the mechanisms involved were similar. The flat particles with a smooth surface texture may develop a weaker interface due to the collection of bleed water along the smooth and flat interface that allows a continuous layer of relatively weak, well-oriented CH crystals to form. This tendency to collect bleed water at interfaces is a common cause of poor strength among concretes with poorly graded aggregates (Roberts 1989), and the smooth surface texture of the glass coarse aggregate may simply aggravate this effect. This same property of coarse glass aggregate may prevent it from developing the cohesive layer of fresh cement paste that normally allows coarse aggregate particles to move easily within a mass of fresh concrete. If a pozzolanic reaction then occurs, it may consume this layer of CH and redeposit it as a stronger layer of CSH - an effect noted by Roberts (1989). If ASR occurs, on the other hand, this layer may be incorporated into the more fluid ASR gel which does not contribute to strength. This possibility is supported by SEM images of the concrete samples in this

research showing smooth, continuous gaps at many of the interfaces between coarse glass aggregate and cement paste. EFFECTS OF GLASS AGGREGATE GRADATION It is clear that smaller, sub-angular particles are far superior to larger, flat and elongated particles. It is difficult, however, to separate the effects of the particle shape from the effects of gradation - there seems to be a substantial correlation between a finer particle size and a more regular particle shape. Making comparisons between materials of similar fineness, i.e. gravel vs. coarse glass, sand vs. fine glass, and fly ash vs. powdered glass, the coarse glass produced substantially harsher workability than similarly graded gravel, the fine glass produced approximately the same or slightly harsher workability than similar sand, and the powdered glass produced slightly better workability than similarly graded fly ash. At the same time, there may be physiochemical reasons for a smaller glass particle performing better than a larger one. If glass aggregate has a distinctive effect on the development of the ionic double layer, this effect may change as an aggregate particle becomes smaller and more regular and has fewer distinctive, sharp edges. The effects of glass form and gradation on ASR will be discussed below. GLASS EFFECTSOF POWDERED While waste glass in typical crushed sizes might replace sand as fine aggregate, powdered glass has possible uses similar to those for Class F fly ashes. It has a similar chemical composition, and its amorphous morphology is at least similar to the outer shell of most fly ashes. It is possible that powdered glass will provide the same effects in concrete that Class F fly ashes do, but current results are somewhat ambiguous, with apparent contradictions between accelerated ASR results and strength results. It will be necessary to conduct further

research, including long-term concrete prism ASR testing to determine what effects powdered glass has on ASR and whether it is usable for some of the same purposes as fly ash. The effects of powdered glass on the properties of fresh concrete are generally positive and encouraging. The demand for water increases only slightly when cement is supplemented with small amounts of powdered glass (1% - 2.5%) and then decreases gradually for supplements up to 20%. The demand for air-entraining admixture is likewise decreased slightly. These effects are probably due to the very low free carbon content of powdered glass compared to similarly graded Class F fly ashes. The effects of powdered glass on strength, however, are ambiguous. Several of the test mixes lost strength at some point during their development, though some of them resumed normal strength growth eventually. The causes of this behavior are unclear; it is possible that some ASR deterioration is taking place, but within the experimental design used in this research, it was not possible to separate the conflicting effects of ASR and the interaction of

ASR with pozzolanic strength development from hydration and strength development.
The likely cause of the differences between Class F fly ash and powdered glass are the alkali contents and the slightly different morphologies. The higher alkali content of the powdered glass, combined with the completely amorphous structure of glass compared to an amorphous layer surrounding a crystalline core for fly ash, and a somewhat finer gradation overall have probably liberated a much higher concentration of alkalis than that liberated by the fly ash. This, combined with the lower quantities of powdered glass used as a cement supplement rather than a cement replacement, overwhelmed any ability of the powdered glass to mitigate the ASR.

If powdered waste glass is used, the gradation and particle shape must be controlled to the
same extent as they would be for waste glass aggregate. It has been suggested that many of

the positive effects of fly ash, especially reduction of water demand, are largely attributable to the spherical shape resulting from the formation of fly ash by precipitation in air, since powdered waste glass is ground rather than being formed by precipitation, this alone might significantly change its effect on concrete. Several researchers (Monzb, et al. 1995) have examined this, however, and their results suggest that ground particles of a similar gradation will have largely the same effects as fly ash formed by precipitation and only slightly higher water demand.

EFFECTS OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN MATERIALS

EFFECTS OF INTERACTION WITH GLASS ON BEHAVIOR OF FLY ASH

A substantial effect of glass aggregate on strength development by fly ash has been observed,
in some cases eliminating nearly all of the strength development expected from the fly ash

itself, thereby reducing the strength of the concrete by as much as 20%- 25% (see Table 5.1 and associated discussion). This effect is most noticeable in those mixes that have a nearpessimum proportion of glass aggregate. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 are presented to investigate this effect. Each of the strengths in Figures

5.1 and 5.2 has been normalized as the ratio of the strength of the given m i x to the strength of
the equivalent mix with 0%fly ash at the same age (e.g., the normalized strength of 12%/35% at 90 days is the ratio of the strength of 12%/35% at 90 days to the strength of 12%/0% at 90 days).

If glass were to have no effect on the pattern of strength development, but rather only on the
overall strength developed, all of the curves on one figure would coincide because the curve would be a characteristic of the type and amount of fly ash and all of the curves on one figure have the same type and amount of fly ash. If, on the other hand, glass has an effect on the

pattern of strength development, but with no interaction between glass and fly ash, then a l l of the curves on each figure would end up at approximately the same level in the end because the effect of the glass aggregate alone on the overall level of strength development is already discounted by the normalization.

100 Age (days) FIGURE 5.1. DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTHBY GLASS CONTENT -20% FLYASH.

10

1000

Neither of the fore mentioned patterns are observed - rather, what is observed for 20% fly ash (Figure 5.1) is that the curves for 24%, 36% and 48% glass nearly coincide, with the curve for 12% glass somewhat below them and the 90% glass curve significantly above the others, while the curve for 0% glass is far above the rest. Because the effects of glass aggregate alone are already discounted, this may be taken as an indication of an interaction between glass and fly ash -with the glass reducing the strength developed by the fly ash.
With 35% fly ash (Figure 5.2), the pattern changes, with 36% glass at the bottom, and the

12%

24%

and

48%

glass

curves

grouped

together,

in

an

overall order

36%<24%<48%<12%. The curve for 90% glass ends up far above the others, and the 0%

glass curve is again at the top. Noting that the effect of the glass alone is already discounted by the normalization, it seems that the glass is again affecting the strength development by fly ash, but does so to a lesser degree at 90% replacement than at lower replacement levels.

Moderate amounts of glass cause a large reduction in the strength development, while use of 90% glass aggregate reduces it only moderately, and allows greater strength development at later ages relative to other glass contents. Several causes may be contributing to h s behavior: It appears that fly ash develops much of its ability to mitigate ASR by acting as a very fine and reactive material that forms a low C:S CSH gel that is able to adsorb alkalis and become a sort of alkali-silica gel without subsequently causing deleterious expansion thus simultaneously increasing the amount of ASR reactive material in the mix and reducing the pessimum proportion of the total mix greatly. This pushes the total mix far

out onto the over-pessimum portion of the ASR pessimum curve, and thereby reduces the ASR deterioration. Other effects that work hand-in-hand with this is that as the alkali content of CSH gel increases its viscosity also decreases (Jones 1988), and the alkali-gel that is generated is distributed throughout the matrix among the fly ash particles rather than being concentrated around reactive aggregate particles. These two effects together change the ASR gel development from a few large pockets of viscous gel to many more small pockets of less viscous gel, which is able to be absorbed by the concrete matrix. The effect on strength, however, is that the gel thus developed by the fly ash is not able to contribute strength to the concrete, and its production consumes fly ash which would otherwise react to form structural CSH gel. The alkali ions incorporated into the CSH at low C:S ratios may also expel ca2' ions from the gel (Qian, et. al. 1994), further contributing to the loss in strength. The fly ash is also unable to densify and improve the paste-aggregate bond as it might otherwise do because the CSH developed with ASR migrates away from the pasteaggregate interface after formation (Hudec and Banahene 1993). The result is actually a weaker paste-aggregate bond because of the consumption of the CH crystals at the interface which, though weak, did provide some strength, rather than a strengthening of the interface as CH crystals are replaced by CSH. This effect may be compounded by glass aggregate, especially coarse glass aggregate, because of the large, smooth, and flat surface which encourages the growth of a large, continuous layer of CH at the interface. This decrease in strength development is counter to the hypothesis by some researchers that fly ash mitigates ASR by strengthening the concrete matrix, though the low-viscosity gel may still densify the matrix and reduce the permeability.

The same interaction is also visible in Figure 5.3, where strength is presented at an age of 180 days and k normalized only according to wl(c +A, rather than glass content, so the effect of the glass aggregate itself is still present. The important observation is that the fitted lines for 0% glass with fly ash F1 and F2 are similar and positive; while the lines for 12% through 48% glass are negative, indicating a loss of strength with increasing fly ash content - suggesting that the fly ash is not contributing as much, if at all, to strength with these glass contents.

20%/y% Fine GIs, FA F2 24%/y% Fine GIs, FA F2 Phase-I1 CEIFC, FA F1

0%

10%

20%

30%

90%ly%, CCIFA. FA FI

Fly Ash Content (% of Cementitious)

FIGURE 5.3.

RELATION OF STRENGTH TO FLY ASH CONTENT

-MODERATE ALKALI MIXES.

A REDUCER ~

INTERACTIONS WITH AIR-ENTRAINING ADMIXTUREAND W

The amount of air-entraining admixture required is related to the type and content of glass aggregate in Figure 5.4, to the type and content of fly ash in Figure 5.5, and to powdered glass content in Figure 5.6. The water demand of mixes with high-range water reducer

(HRWR) is related to glass content in Figure 5.7 with several fly ash contents noted on the
figure.

103

Comparing Figures 5.4 and 5.5, glass aggregate is seen to have only a small effect on the airentraining admixture required - most of the demand is clearly deriving from the fly ash. The
n effect upward trend with increasing glass content that is apparent in Figure 5.4 is actually a

of fly ash rather than glass, and is a result of the higher glass contents generally being accompanied by higher fly ash contents as well. This may be seen by comparing, for example,

i x with no glass and 25% fly ash (265 mum3/1% Air) to similar mixtures with the control m
24% glass (likewise at 260 to 270 m ~ m ~ / l Air). %

50 0% 12%
24%

36%

Glass Content (% of Total.Aggregate) FIGURE 5.4. AIR-ENTRAINWG ADMIXTURE REQUIREDBY TYPE AND CONTENT OF GLASS AGGREGATE.

It is clear from Figure 5.5 that both the type and content of fly ash have substantial effects on the admixture requirements, with typical increases from 1 to 2.5 times for 0% to 15% fly ash, ranging linearly up to 2.5 to 6 times the air-entraining admixture required for control concrete at 35% fly ash replacement.

0%

5%

10% 15% 20% 25 % Fly Ash Content (% of Total Cementitious)

30%

FIGURE 5.5. AIR-ENTRAINING ADMIXTURE REQUIRED BY TYPE AND CONTENT OF FLY ASH.

I
o

20% Glass Aggr No Glass

<I
0

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Powdered Glass Content (% of Cement) FIGURE 5.6. AIR-EI~IR~ING ADMIXTURE REQUIRED BY CONTENT OF POWDEREDGLASS.

Figure 5.6 shows the air-entraining admixture required by various amounts of powdered glass as a cement supplement. There is a slight beneficial effect at all levels of addition less than

20%. Because the powdered glass has an extremely low free carbon content, it is able to
lubricate the m i x and reduce the need for air-entraining admixture to act as a particle surfactant and allowing it to stabilize air bubbles instead, thus limiting demand - in contrast to the fly ashes used, which have such a large demand due to their own free carbon content that any reducing effect due to workability enhancement is negligible.

Similar effects are noted when comparing the effects of HRWR on the various mixes
(Figure 5.7). For mixes with no glass and no fly ash, there is a large effect of adding HRWR, while for mixes with either glass or fly ash, or both, there is only a small effect at the dosages of HRWR used. This effect does not necessarily cause an insurmountable problem for the use of either glass aggregate or fly ash - it may simply limit the range of usable wlc ratios at a given HRWR dosage. These mixes may require greater dosages of HRWR for significant effects to be observed.

12%

24%

Glass Content FIGURE 5.7. WATER DEMAND WITH AND WITHOUT HRWR BY GLASS CONTENT.

L~LKALI-SILICA REACTIVITY AND MITIGATION

R E A ~ ~

Waste glass is clearly highly alkali-silica reactive. When used with moderate-alkali cement and no fly ash or other measures to mitigate the reaction, certain combinations of glass exceed allowable expansion criteria as early as 28 days after mixing. The mechanisms of ASR expansion and deterioration are complex and not known with certainty. The expansion observed in a particular case is determined by the total potential for ASR expansion as determined by the amounts of the various reactants present, the rate of the alkali-silica reaction and gel production, and the amount of gel expansion that is able to be accommodated by the concrete matrix within a given time period - probably influenced by the viscosity or other properties of the gel.

PESSIMUM BEHAVIOR
One of the defining characteristics of ASR, and one which many other researchers have also observed, is what has become known as 'pessimum' behavior. Pessimum behavior is a phenomenon wherein the greatest expansion and the greatest deterioration due to ASR are observed not at the highest levels of replacement of natural aggregate by glass, but rather at some moderate level. Either above or below this pessimum level, the expansion and Possible mechanisms whereby the

deterioration are less than at the pessimum level.

pessimum phenomenon is expected to occur are summarized in Chapter 2. Pessimum behavior was observed for the glass aggregate studied in this research, and several noteworthy conclusions may be drawn from the results: This study showed that the pessimum proportion of glass aggregate is not an unchanging parameter unlike the results obtained by previous researchers. A finer glass gradation

reduces the pessimum proportion, and with the addition of fly ash and with age the pessimum level remains approximately constant and the peak moves to a slightly higher glass content. The concrete prism tests with fine glass aggregate displayed pessimum behavior at ~ 2 5 % replacement of natural aggregate by glass, while in the accelerated tests, the pessimum amount was ~ 5 0 % .This may indicate that ASR with fine glass depends on the mortar fraction of the mix, while the coarse aggregate is relatively insignificant. It might be noted that these observations of pessimum behavior's relation to surface area and thereby to particle size may be limited to glass aggregates. Figg (1981) has observed that

ASR is primarily a surface phenomenon for Pyrex glass aggregate, while for Beltane Opal it
takes place throughout the volume of the aggregate and is independent of particle size. This is likely because opal is reactive because it is cryptocristalline, i.e. has a crystalline or semicrystalline structure, but with micropores in the structure which allow reactive species to penetrate, while glass is reactive because it is amorphous, i.e., all of its silica structures are weakly held, but there are no openings which particularly allow access to the particle interior (Gillott and Beddoes 1981).

EFFECTS OF FLY ASHON ASR

In examining the expansion of ASR concrete prisms, a pattern emerges when comparing
mixes with various fly ash contents (Figure 5.8): First, the lowest expansion is generally not found with the highest fly ash content, rather a minimum expansion is observed at some lower fly ash content and the expansion rises slightly as the fly ash content is increased beyond that for a minimum expansion. Second, the amount of fly ash required for minimum expansion increases with increasing glass content - at 0% glass, 20% fly ash provides the minimum expansion; at 12% glass,

20% fly ash; at 48% glass, 25% fly ash; and at 90% glass, 30% fly ash provides the
minimum expansion. The 0% glass series trend is not entirely clear, possibly because of

the very slightly amount of reactive aggregate present, but the others show this effect very clearly. Note that this is not the pessimum effect, which is a phenomenon wherein a variation in glass content produces a maximum expansion at some intermediate glass content. Rather, this is a minimum expansion at an intermediate (rather than a maximum)fly ash content.
........................................................... ..............................................................

.............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................. ..............................................................

............................................................. '*.---.-.-. - Mod, 90%/y%. CAIFA, FA F1 .-.-.__ -.-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . - - -* .: .......................-..,,............. -.--- _.__ -._ -Mod-Alk Criterion .... .. ..................:..-........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b . ................................. ....................... ........................................ L ................................... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ..................................................................
- 0 - . - _ .

-Mod, O%/y%, FA F1 -9Mod, 12%/y%, CAEA, FA F1 - - + .- Mod, 48%/y%. CCIFA, FA F1

-.)'

-.

r .

"

................. ........................................................... .............................. ' : : .................................... \............................... --. I& .....................................................................................................

................................................................................................... .............................................................................................
..................................................................................................

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35 %

Fly Ash Content (% of total cementitious)

In Figure 5.8, the moderate-alkali coarse glass series are shown to allow analysis at 1095 days, an age which the low-alkali mixes have not yet reached. Figure 4.33 suggests that the ability of fly ash to mitigate ASR also varies with the amount of glass present. At high glass contents (90% glass aggregate), glass is not as reactive, because it is beyond the pessirnum proportion of glass; but it is also evident that fly ash is not able to

109 limit reactions over the long term at these glass contents either. Note (Figure 4.33) that by 1095 days, all of the 90% glass mixes have exceeded the allowable expansion criterion, though the mixes at the pessimum glass content with adequate fly ash for mitigation are still below or only slightly above the criterion.

M~IGATION
Besides using fly ash, several other possible mitigation schemes have been used in practice or

in research in the past, and are reflected by some of the experimental mixes in this research:
judicious proportion of natural and glass aggregate, using low-alkali cement, air-entrainment, use of LiOH or other alkali salts as admixtures, and using powdered glass in place of fly ash. The results of using powdered glass are inconclusive - it may prove effective with further experimentation with a wider range of glass aggregate-powdered glass combinations, while the use of LiOH is beyond the scope of this research. Judicious aggregate proportioning, use of low-alkali cement, and air-entrainment show promise as partial solutions to ASR in this research, but cannot be relied upon to consistently provide complete mitigation. Fly ash is the only mitigation measure which may be unequivocally recommended based on the results of this research; particularly in the more variable mixing and exposure environments of field concrete, other measures provide insufficient assurance of mitigation.

OFTEibU PROPORTIONS OF WASTE GLASS AGGREGATE AND FLYASH

In light of the pessimum behavior of glass with regard to both ASR expansion and strength,
this behavior must be taken into account when selecting aggregate proportions. As a finer gradation is used, the pessimum proportion drops; e.g. for a CA/FA mixture with an average glass particle size of 3 - 4 rnm, the pessimum proportion is about 36%, while fine glass

mixtures with average glass particle sizes of 0.5 - 1.0 mm have pessimum proportions around
24%.

Optimizing the glass gradations and proportions would thus require meeting the following: A fine, well graded waste glass aggregate, such as Glass FG used in this study to replace the natural sand in the concrete mix design. A proportion of glass aggregate somewhat below the pessimum proportion for that gradation - using a slightly coarser but still acceptable glass gradation will allow use of more glass aggregate with acceptable long-term performance. For the glasses FG and FI used in this research, a 15% to 20% replacement of aggregate with glass would be required. Fly ash of appropriate gradation and quantity used to mitigate ASR. For the cement-fly ash-aggregate combinations studied, the optimum proportion of fly ash is
~20% of the total cementitious material, though the results suggest that high quality fly ash

with optimum glass aggregate may be effective at somewhat lower levels, possibly ~ 1 0 % . Higher than optimum proportions of fly ash produce somewhat higher expansion because of the ASR reactivity of the fly ash itself. Aggregates, cements and other admixtures should be selected with the goal of minimizing the amount of fly ash necessary for ASR mitigation, because the fly ash used to mitigate ASR will demand water while adding little to the strength of the concrete.

USEOF WASTE GLASS AGGREGA'IE

Waste glass aggregate will generally be obtained from commercial municipal recyclers, and the condition and physical properties of the glass must be controlled to produce acceptable concrete.

The particle shape must approach that of a nearly cubic, or at least regular, sub-angular sand, rather than flakes or plates. Laboratory experience demonstrated that either of these particle shapes can be produced during glass processing, depending on the crushing method used. The glass must be clean. Food or chemical contaminants, especially sugars, have been shown to have an overwhelming effect on strength (up to a 40% loss of strength at 28 days) in the quantities typically found on unwashed municipal waste glass. Other

contaminants, such as paper or plastic remnants, also have an effect, though they are not as severe and have not been quantified. The glass must be well-graded and must be provided within a consistent gradation. Some crushing and processing methods produce severely uniformly graded aggregate. This problem may be exacerbated by the washing process if care is not taken to avoid loss of fine material. The strength of the glass aggregate and the composition of the glass are probably also significant, though the effects of these parameters on the mix was not included in the scope of this research. It will generally be necessary to use water reducers to counter the water demand of even optimal glass aggregate. The segregation and bleeding what have been observed as minor, controllable problems with glass aggregate may be compounded if water reducers are not used judiciously or if an otherwise unacceptable waste glass aggregate is used with excessive quantities of water reducers. USEOF MINERAL ADMIXTURES INWASTE GLASS AGGREGATE Optimizing the type of fly ash is outside of the primary scope of this research and will generally require some trial in any case, but several points may be noted:

The alkali content of the fly ash should be kept as low as possible. The interaction of fly ash gradation, fly ash alkali content, and glass aggregate reactivity in determining the extent and rate of ASR deterioration was not addressed directly within the scope of this research, but the results from trials with powdered waste glass and the experiences of other researchers (BCrub6, et. al. 1995b, among many others) suggests that about 5% available alkali content in the fly ash is a reasonable limit, with fly ashes near 5% being accepted only after trials. The effects of fly ash on air-entraining and water reducer admixture requirements are exacerbated by the presence of glass aggregate, therefore, the free carbon content of fly ash used with waste glass aggregate should be kept to a minimum, to reduce the additional admixture demand. The gradation of the fly ash may affect the ability of the fly ash to mitigate ASR, as has been discussed above. Current results suggest that a fly ash with a moderate rather than a very fine gradation may be better, provided that the of larger particles does not

drive up the available alkal~ and free carbon contents. A moderate gradation may provide longer-lasting mitigation of ASR than a fine-gradation fly ash. The SiOz,and possibly the CaO and MgO contents of the fly ash or powdered glass will be factors in their effectiveness in the mitigation of ASR (Kobayashi, et al. 1989), but these effects are beyond the scope of this research. ASR TESTPROCEDURES While the accelerated mortar bar test (ASTM C1260) is gaining acceptance within the concrete industry, and is probably the best available screening test, its usability for the fundamental study of ASR is limited. Several factors suggest that the unaccelerated concrete

prism test is still necessary at least as a supplement to ASTM C1260 when results beyond a screening evaluation are required. The difference in the pessirnum proportion in the concrete prism tests (pessirnum at 36% -

48% with coarse and fine glass vs. 20% - 24% with fine glass) also suggests that ASR might
f the reactive aggregate best be regarded as a phenomenon of the mortar fraction of the mix. I is present in the coarse aggregate fraction of the concrete, the gradation must be changed before it can be used in the mortar bar test and any interpretation of the results beyond a screening evaluation must be made very cautiously. Particularly important is a consistent equivalence between aggregate proportions in the mortar bar and aggregate proportions in the corresponding concrete. If the reactive

aggregate is in the fine aggregate fraction of the concrete, making the mortar bar equivalent to the mortar fraction of the concrete (including the reactive aggregate) gives results

i x with 60% coarse natural consistent with concrete prism tests. For example, a concrete m
aggregate, 20% fine natural aggregate and 20% fine glass aggregate would be best represented by a mortar bar with 50%fine natural aggregate and 50%fine glass aggregate.

AREASREQUIRING FURTHER RESEARCH

As this research was completed and the data analysis proceeded, several areas were identifiable as potential future research areas: Only one dosage of high-range water reducer (HRWR) was used, selected according to the manufacturer's instructions before the I-IRWR series began. Because glass and fly ash, especially in combination, displayed much smaller response to HRWR than the control mixes, a larger dosage may be appropriate and might be useable without the airentrainment destabilization which is characteristic of a HRWR overdose.

114 The Powdered Glass Series was conceived as parallel to similar mixes with silica fume, with powdered glass supplementing rather than replacing cement and used in fairly small quantities (1% - 20% cement supplement). The powdered glass might be better modeled as similar to Class F fly ash. According to this model, the powdered glass series could be repeated with powdered glass used as a cement replacement in proportions from 10% 40%. As powdered glass might be a useful outlet for waste glass recycling in and of itself, experimental trials might be made both with and without waste glass aggregate included as part of the mix.
A more thorough understanding of the interaction between glass and fly ash might be

developed by a direct approach to an understanding of ASR mechanisms (rather than only observing symptoms). SEM and optical microscopy and chemical characterization of glass and of concrete pore solutions would be ideal components of such a program.

CHAPTER 6 - SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPLICATION

An experimental research program was conducted to: (1) identlfy characteristics of waste glass
that produce satisfactory concrete for pavement applications, (2) to document the alkali-silica reactivity of waste glass aggregate and determine means of mitigating this ASR, and (3) to determine the effects of waste glass aggregate and powdered waste glass on the strength and durability of concrete. The performance of glasdfly ash concrete was evaluated, and experimental work conducted by the author, results of others at the University of Wisconsin, and other researchers' published results were used to synthesize conclusions about the processes and mechanisms of ASR and strength development in glasdfly ash concrete. Evaluation of the experimental mixes included consideration of compressive strength, fieezelthaw resistance, and resistance to ASR deterioration at ages firom one month to three years. Some study of the interactions between the experimental materials and air-entraining admixtures, water-reducing admixtures, fly ash and fine powdered waste glass was included to aid application of the conclusions to pavement trials.

STRENGTH Strength has been used in this research as the primary measure of the effects of glass aggregate on concrete. The range of strengths observed were very broad - at 180 to 365 days ranging from less than 10 MPa up to greater than 50 MPa. The effects of glass aggregate on strength have been be divided into three catagories: 1. Glass aggregate displays a water demand for workability greater than that of natural aggregate. Satisfaction of this water demand increases the wlc ratio of the concrete, thereby resulting in a lower strength. This effect increases steadily with increasing glass content, with the fine glass mixes exhibiting slightly lower demand than the coarse glass mixes.

2. Glass aggregate reduces the strength developed by fly ash in the cementlfly ash m i x in
situations in which ASR is active, reducing the strength of concrete mixes made from typical proportions of glass and fly ash by as much as 25%. This effect is substantial for
all of the mixes with moderate-alkali cement, while for the mixes that include low-alkali

cement the magnitude of this effect is much lower. The results obtained with various gla~ contents points to ASR as the likely cause of the interaction. In the high-alkali ASR environment, the low C:S ratio gel formed by fly ash becomes an alkali-CSH gel of low viscosity. Thus rather than form structural CSH gel, fly ash may form a fluid alkaliCSH gel that moves away from the aggregate particles and is unable to densify and improve the paste-aggregate bond, leaving instead a weaker interface devoid of both CH crystals and CSH gel.
3. Finally, there is a strength loss intrinsic to the glass aggregate, i.e., it cannot be accounted

for by either a change in wlc ratio or air content, or a change in the behavior of the

cementitious components of the mix. This effect is probably due to a difference in pasteaggregate bond for a glass particle vs. a natural aggregate particle, and can amount to anything from a 25% strength loss to a 5% strength gain. The relatively good

performance of fine glass compared to coarse glass aggregate is probabIy because the dimensions of the interfacial microstructure (-50 - 150 pm thick) are of the same order of magnitude as the size of the glass aggregate particle itself, and so the microstructure is able to bridge over the fine glass aggregate particle and incorporate it into its structure. The coarse glass aggregate particles, on the other hand, are many times larger than the thickness of the interfacial zone and present a large, smooth, and flat interface which can produce a definite plane of weakness. This effect primarily reflects a change in the glass form and gradation. The contribution of each of these effect for several representative mixes was presented in. Table 5.1, and is illustrated graphically in Figure 6.1.
10%
ater Demand, CNFA & C E R Water Demand, OO/FG
A

5,
5
U

0%
A

b - 10% CA
-20% o -30%
W

Intrinsic Effect, CNFA Intrinsic Effect, OOFG Interaction, Mod-Alk Cement

2 -40%

Interaction, Low-Alk Cement

3 -50%
.
U H

9)

T o t a l Effect, CNFA & Mod-Alk

+

Total Effect, Low-Alk, CEJFC

640%
(d

-70%
Interaction, Mod-Alk Cement

-80% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90

- - - - Water Demand, CAIFA & CE/FC - - - Intrinsic Effect, CAEA & CEFC

Glass Content (% of Total Aggr.)

Figure 6.1 illustrates the dramatic loss in strength due to the three combined effects in a m i x with indescriminate use of coarse glass and moderate-alkali cement - a loss in strength ranging from 50% with 12% glass up to 80% with 90% glass. Also illustrated in Figure 6.1, however, are the gains which can be realized by judicious selection of materials and proportions: By limiting the glass aggregate to a limited fine gradation and a more regular particle shape (glass OO/FG) at a glass content of 20% - 24% of the total aggregate, the loss due to water demand may be reduced from =lo% (with glasses CAEA and CEIFC) to about 0% - 5%, and the loss due to the intrinsic effect may likewise be reduced from =30% (with glass C M A ) to about 0% - 5%. By using low-alkali rather than moderate-alkali cement as well, the loss due to the to -5%. interaction between glass and fly ash may be reduced from ~ 2 0 % The total effect of these design improvements is to reduce strength loss from ~ 6 0 % at a glass content of 20% - 24% to a loss of about 0% to 15%.

DURABILITY
The freeze-thaw durability of concrete with glass aggregate is promising. With optimal proportions of glass aggregate it is possible to match the performance of low wlc ratio control concrete in accelerated freeze-thaw testing. Mixes with optimal glass aggregate (the OOIFG mixes in the laboratory and the OO/FI mixes in the field) performed as well as or slightly better than the control mixes, while the field trial exposure tests sections had little noticeable degradation due to either abrasion or freeze-thaw exposure.

119 ASR REACTIVITY Waste glass is clearly highly alkali-silica reactive. When used with moderate-alkali cement and no fly ash or other measures to mitigate the reaction, certain combinations of glass exceed allowable expansion criteria as early as 28 days after mixing. Observations that the pessimum content varies with glass gradation (pessimum at 36% - 48% of total aggregate with coarse glass vs. 20% - 24% of total aggregate with fine glass vs. 50% of fine aggregate in the mortar bar test) suggest that ASR depends on the mortar fraction with regard to critical proportions of glass and fly ash.

EFFECTS OF POWDERED GLASS

When waste glass is powdered very finely, its has potential for use as a mineral admixture. In this research, powdered glass was used in a manner analogous to silica fume, i.e. as a cement supplement at low (1% - 20%) addition levels; but based on the subsequently observed behavior it appears that powdered glass might be better modeled as similar to Class F fly ash, i.e. as a cement replacement at levels of 10% - 40% of the total cementitious materials, either with or without waste glass aggregate. The strength results are ambiguous, possibly because ASR deterioration took place beyond the ability of the powdered glass to mitigate. Powdered glass as a cement supplement has only slight effects on water demand and air-entraining admixture requirements.

EFFECTS OF FLYASH
The effectiveness of fly ash in mitigation of ASR depends on the amount of reactive glass aggregate in the mix. At proportions of 12% - 48% glass aggregate it was found that some proportion of fly ash reliably mitigates ASR. For 90% glass aggregate no amount of fly ash 535% replacement of cement was able to mitigate ASR.

It appears that fly ash mitigates ASR primarily by acting as a very fine and reactive material itself which consumes alkalis in the production of an ASR-like alkali-CSH gel. It causes a simultaneous reduction of the pessimum proportion of the total mix and an effective increase
in the amount of ASR reactive material to far beyond the pessimum proportion. This,

combined with a decrease in the viscosity of CSH gel with increasing alkali content (Jones 1988) and a distribution of the reaction more evenly among the fly ash particles throughout the concrete matrix, changes ASR gel development from a few large pockets of viscous gel to many more small pockets of fluid gel, which is able to be absorbed by the concrete matrix. For mixes which are problematic but are already beyond the pessimum proportion, fly ash does not have much of an effect other than possibly to delay ASR slightly.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPLICAT~ON

Waste glass aggregate can be used successfully in place of natural fine aggregate at replacement levels up to 50% of the fine aggregate fraction. A glass gradation between 75 pm and ~ 1 . rnm 5 was found to produce strengths sirmlar to control concrete at comparable
W/(C

+fi ratios.

However, the initial strength gain is less than that of the control specimens

(an optimal mix with glass aggregate starts with only 75% of the strength of the control mix
at 7 days age). At 28 days the strength rises to ~ 8 5 % of the strength of the control, to ~ 9 5 % at 180 days, and to ~ 1 0 0 % of the strength of the control at 365 days. Glass coarser than about 1.5 mm produces poor strength when used as aggregate, due to its extremely poor shape, poor surface characteristics, and high friability. To design an effective mix with glass aggregate, in terms of strength and ASR mitigation, a proportion of glass aggregate slightly less than the pessimum proportion seems optimal. This proportion maximizes the use of glass while remaining within the range of glass contents in

which fly ash can effectively mitigate ASR. Fly ash should be used in proportions of =lo% to

20% of the total cementitious material.

In addition, the following characteristics will be required: the particle shape must approach that of regular, sub-angular sand, rather than flakes or plates. Special care is required in the crushing of glass aggregate to satisfy this. The glass must be clean, free of food or chemical contaminants, especially sugars. The glass must be well graded, which will require some care in the crushing and washing operations. It will generally be necessary to use water reducers with glass aggregate to reduce the water demand for workability. Care must be taken that the quantity of water reducer is tailored to the glass aggregate mix. Glass aggregate is likely to demand greater quantities of water reducer, while at the same time overuse might aggravate glass' slight tendency toward bleeding and segregation. Use of fly ash was the only procedure found to be consistently effective in mitigation of ASR. Other procedures, in particular judicious aggregate proportioning, use of low-alkali cement and use of air-entrainment, were found to be only partially effective. Low-alkali cement and air-entrainment should still be used whenever possible in the design of a m i x with glass aggregate, however, because they reduce the degree to which fly ash must act to mitigate ASR and thereby allow fly ash to develop a greater portion of its potential strength. The fly ash used should be selected to have a high pozzolanic and low CaO content (generally Class F) and the lowest alkali level possible. A 5% available alkali content is a reasonable limit, however, an ash with an alkali content near 5% should definitely be evaluated in test trials before use. The free carbon content should also be kept as low as possible to minimize interaction with water reducers and air-entraining admixtures.

Both strength and freeze-thaw durability of glass aggregate concrete are comparable to control concrete and well within the acceptable range for use in pavement. Both the

20%/20% OOIFG m i x and the very similar OOFI mix showed excellent strength and durability. The Field Trial test sections, at an age of =18 months, show performance of parallel laboratory cylinders, strength cores, visual inspection and other testing of the sections themselves similar to the performance outlined above for the laboratory series. These or similar mixes should perform well in further pavement applications.

ACI Committee 226 (1987). "Silica Fume in Concrete." ACI Materials Journal, 84(2), 158-166. American Society for Testing and Materials (1994). 1994 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4: Construction, Vol. 04.02, Philadelphia. C3 1-91, Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Field C39-86, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens C42-90, Standard Test Method for Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete C127-88, Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate C128-93, Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate C136-92, Standard Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregate C138-92, Standard Test Method for Unit Weight, Yield, and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete C 143-90a, Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete C192-90a, Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory C215-85, Standard Test Method for Fundamental Transverse, Longitudinal and Torsional Frequencies of Concrete Specimens C227-90, Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Cement Aggregate Combinations (Mortar-Bar Method) C231-91b, Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method C260-86, Standard Specification for Air-Entraining Admixtures for Concrete C289-87, Standard Test Method for Potential Reactivity of Aggregates (Chemical Method) C490-93a, Standard Specification for Apparatus for Use in Measurement of Length Change of Hardened Cement Paste, Mortar and Concrete
.

C494-90, Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete C496-90, Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens (2566-89, Standard Test Method for Total Moisture Content of Aggregate by Drying C617-87, Standard Practice for Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens

C618-93, Standard Specification for Fly Ash and Raw or Calcinated Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Portland Cement Concrete. C666-92, Standard Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing C805-85, Standard Test Method for Rebound Number of Hardened Concrete C1260-94, Standard Test Method for Potentla1 Alkali Reactivity of Aggregates (Mortar-Bar Method). American Society for Testing and Materials (1993). 1993 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4: Construction, Vol. 04.01, Philadelphia. C305-91, Standard Practice for Mechanical Mixing of Hydraulic Cement Pastes and Mortars of Plastic Consistency Babu, K. G. and Rao, G. S. N. (1994). "Early Strength Behaviour of Fly Ash Concretes." Cement and Concrete Research, 24(2), 277-284. BtruM, M. A., Carles-Gibergues, A., '~uchesne, J. and Naproux, P. (1995a). "Influence of Particle Size Distribution on the Effectiveness of Type-F Fly Ash in Suppressing Expansion Due to Alkali-Silica Reactivity." Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag, and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, Milwaukee, 1, 177-192. BkruM, M. A., Duchesne, J. and Chouinard, D. (1995b). 'Why the Accelerated Mortar Bar Bethod ASTM C1260 is Reliable for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Supplementary Cementing Materials in Suppressing Expansion Due to Alkali-Silica Reactivity." Cement, Concrete and Aggregates, 17(1), 26-34. Bjegovic, D., Mikulic, D., and Ukraincik, V. (1987). 'Theoretical Aspect and Methods of Testing Concrete Resistance to Freezing and Deicing Chemicals." Proceedings of the Katherine and Bryant Mather International Conference on Concrete Durability, 1,947-972. Brown, P. W. (1989). "Phase Equilibria and Cement Hydration." Material Science of Concrete I, American Ceramic Society, 73-93. Bungey, J. H. (1979). "Determining Concrete Strength by Using Small-Diameter Cores." Magazine of Concrete Research, 31(107), 91-98. Cabrera, J. G., Hopkins, C. J., Woolley, G. R., Lee, R. E., Shaw, J., Plowman, C. and Fox, H. (1986). "Evaluation of the Properties of British Pulverized Fuel Ashes and Their Influence on the Strength of Concrete." Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag andNatura1 Pouolans in Concrete, Madrid, 1, 115-144.. Chatterji, S. and Christensen, P. (1990). "Studies of Alkali-Silica Reaction; Part 7: Modelling of Expansion." Cement and Concrete Research, 20(2), 285-290.

Chatterji, S., Taulow, N., and Jensen, A. D. (1989). "Studies of Alkali-Silica Reaction, Part 5: Verification of a Newly Proposed Reaction Mechanism" Cement and Concrete Research, 19(2), 177-183. Commercial Testing & Engineering Co. (1989). 'Wisconsin Power & Light Co., Rock River Generating Station, Class F Fly Ash Analysis Report." Lombard, IL. Cramer, S. M. and de la Cruz, R. V. (1994). "Interim Report and Synopsis on Glass in Concrete Sidewalk Demonstration Project." College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Curtil, L. and Habita, M. F. (1994). "Study of the Alkah-Aggregate Reaction on Concrete Prisms." Cement and Concrete Research, 24(3), 473-478. Davies, G. and Oberholster, R. E. (1987). "Use of the NBRI Accelerated Test to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Mineral Admixtures in Preventing the Alkali-Silica Reaction." Cement and Concrete Research, 17(1), 97- 107. de la Cruz, R. V. and Cramer, S. M. (1992). "Waste Glass as an Aggregate for Concrete-Phase11." a Proposal for Research Work, College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison. de la Cruz, R. V. and Cramer, S. M. (1991). 'Waste Glass as an Aggregate for Concrete." a Proposal for Research Work, College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Diamond, S. (1975). "A Review of Alkali-Silica Reaction and Expansion Mechanism: Alkalis in Cement and Concrete Pore Solutions." Cement and Concrete Research, 5, 329-346. Dubberke, W. (1994). Letter to Jim Perry, Wisconsin Department o f Transportation, Iowa Department of Transportation, Arnes, Iowa. Duchesne, J. and BCruM, M. A. (1994a). "Available Alkalies fkom Supplementary Cementing Materials." ACZ Materials Journal, 91(3), 89-299. Duchesne, J. and BCruM, M. A. (1994b). 'The Effectiveness of Supplementary Cementing Materials in Suppressing Expansion Due to ASR: Another Look at the Reaction Mechanism, Part 1: Concrete Expansion and Portlandite Depletion." Cement and Concrete Research, 24(1), 73-82. Duchesne, J. and B6ruM, M. A. (1994~).'The Effectiveness of Supplementary Cementing Materials in Suppressing Expansion Due to ASR: Another Look at the Reaction Mechanism, Part 2: Pore Solution Chemistry." Cement and Concrete Research, 24(2), 221-230. Figg, J. W. (1981). "Reaction Between Cement and Artificial Glass in Concrete." Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, National Building Research Institute, Cape Town. Fournier, B. and BCruM, M. A. (1991a). "Application of the NBRI Accelerated Mortar Bar Test to Siliceous Carbonate Aggregates Produced in the St. Lawrence Lowlands (Quebec, Canada). Part 1: Influence of Various Parameters on the Test Results." Cement and Concrete Research, 21(5), 853-862. Fraay, A. L. A., Bijen, J. M., and de Haan, Y. M. (1989). "Reaction of Fly Ash in Concrete; A Critical Examination." Cement and Concrete Research, 19(2), 235-246.

Gaudette, S. P. (1993). "Pilot Study on the Effects of Waste Glass Aggregate on Portland Cement Concrete." An Independent Study Report prepared in partial fulfillment of the Master of Science Degree, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Gillott, J. E. and Beddoes, R. J. (1981). "Continuing Studies of Alkali-Aggregate Reactions in Concrete." Proceedings of the Conference on Alkli-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, National Building Research Institute, Cape Town. Gillott, J. E. and Wang, H. (1993). "Improved Control of Alkali-Silica Reaction by Combined Use of Admixtures." Cement and Concrete Research, 23(4), 973-980. Goldman, A. and Bentur, A. (1993). 'The Influence of Microfillers on Enhancement of Concrete Strength." Cement and Concrete Research, 23(4), 962-972. Gopalan, M. K. (1993). 'Nucleation and Pozzolanic Factors in Strength Development of Class F Fly Ash Concrete." ACI Materials Journal, 90(2), 117-121. Hobbs, D. W. (1988). Alkli-Silica Reaction in Concrete, Thomas Telford, London. Hobbs, D. W. (1986a). "Deleterious Expansion of Concrete Due to Alkali-Silica Reaction: Lnnuence of PFA and Slag." Magazine of Concrete Research, 38(137), 191-205. Holnam (1993). "Laboratory Report." Mason City Plant, Mason City, Iowa. Hudec, P. P. and Banahene, N. K (1993). "Chemical Treatments and Additives for Controlling Alkali Reactivity." Cement and Concrete Composites, 15,21-26. Johnston, C. D. (1974). "Waste Glass as Coarse Aggregate for Concrete." Journal of Testing and Evaluution, 2(5), 344-350. Jones, T. N. (1988). "New Interpretation of Alkali-Silica Reaction and Expansion Mechanisms in Concrete." Chemistry and Industry, (2), 40-44. Kawamura, M. and Takernoto, K. (1988). "Correlation between Pore Solution Composition and Alkali-Silica Expansion of Mortars Containing Various Fly Ashes and Blast Furnace Slags." International Journal of Composites and Lightweight Concrete, 10(4), 2 15-223. Khedr, S. A. and Abou-Zeid, M. N. (1994). "Characteristics of Silica Fume Concrete." Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 6(3), 357-375. Kobayashi, S., Hozumi, Y., Nakano, T., and Yanagida, T. (1989). "Study on the Effect of the Quality of Fly Ash for Controlling Alkali-Aggregate Reactions." Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag, and Natural Pouolans in Concrete, Trondheim, Norway, 403-4 15. Kosrnatka, S. H. and Panarese, W. C. (1988). Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, 13th Edition, Portland Cement Association. Lafarge Corporation (1991). "Cement Mill Test Report." Alpena Plant, Southfield, Michigan. Lane, D. S. (1991). "Alkali-Silica Reactivity: An Overview of a Concrete Durability Problem".

Lenzner, D. (1981). "Influence of the Amount of Mixing Water on the Alkali-Silica Reaction." Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, National Building Research Institute, Cape Town. Ludwig, U. (1981). 'Theoretical and Practical Research on the Alkali-Silica Reaction." Proceedigs o f the Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, National Building Research Institute, Cape Town. Mehta, P. K. (1989). "Pozzolanic and Cementitious By-Products in Concrete-Another Look." Proceedings o f the Third International Conference on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag, and Natural Pouolans in Concrete, Trondheim, Norway, 1-43. Monz6, J., Pay& J., Peris-Mora, E. and Borrachero, M. V. (1995). " M e c h c a l Treatment of Fly Ashes: Strength Development and Workability of Mortars Containing Ground Fly Ashes." Proceedings o f the Fifth International Conference on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag, and Natural Pouolans in Concrete, Milwaukee, 1,339-353. Monz6, J., Pay$ J., and Peris-Mora, E. (1994). "A Preliminary Study of Fy Ash Granulometric Influence on Mortar Strength." Cement and Concrete Research, 24(4), 79 1-796. Nasser, K W. and Al-Maneseer, A. A. (1987). "It's Time for a Change fkom 6 x 12- to 3 x 6- in. Cylinders." ACI Materials Journal, 84(3), 2 13-216. Neville, A. M. (1981). Properties o f Concrete, 3rd Ed., Pitrnan, Marshfield, MA. Qian, C., Guo, H., Lan, X., and Tang, M. (1994). "Mechanism of Mineral Admixture Suppressing Alkali-Silica Reaction; Part 11: Retardation of the Transport of Na, K, and OH Ions in Pore Structure Caused by Acidic Action of Mineral Admixture Particles in Matrix." Cement and Concrete Research, 24(7), 1327-1334. Regourd, M., Hornain, H. and Poitevin, P. (1981). 'The Alkali-Aggregate Reaction - Concrete Microstructural Evolution." Proceedings o f the Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Cape Town. Roberts, L. R. (1989). "Microsilica in Concrete, I." Material Science o f Concrete I, American Ceramic Society, 197-222. Rogers, C. A. and Hooton, R. D. (1991). "Reduction in Mortar and Concrete Expansion with Reactive Aggregates Due to Alkali Leaching." Cement, Concrete and Aggregates, 13(1), 42-49. Schmidt, A. and Saia, W. H. F. (1963). "Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Tests on Glass Used for Exposed Aggregate Wall Panel Work." ACI Materials Journal, 60, 1235-1236. f Concrete I, Scrivener, K L. (1989). 'The Microstructure of Concrete." Material Science o American Ceramic Society, 127-161. Shayan, A. (1992). 'The 'Pessimum' Effect in an Accelerated Mortar Bar Test Using 1M NaOH Solution at 80C." Cement and Concrete Composites, 14,249-255.

128 Stark, D., Morgan, B. and Okarnoto, P. (1993). Eliminating or Minimizing Alkali-Silica Reactivity, Strategic Highway Research Program, Washington. State of Wisconsin (1989). Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction, Department of Transportation. f Tang, M., Xu, Z., and Han, S. (1987). "Alkali Reactivity of Glass Aggregate." Durability o Building Materials, 4(4), 377-385. U. S. Department of Commerce, Economics, and Statistical Administration, Bureau of the Census (1993). "Statistical Abstract of the United States." The National Data Book, 1993, 1 13th Edition Table 372; Minicipal Solid Waste Generation, Recovery, and Disposal: 1969 to 1990, pp. 227. Table 373; Generation and Recovery of Selected Materials in Municipal Solid Waste: 1960 to 1990, pp. 227. Virnawala, D. P. (1992). ''Expansion of Glass-Containing Concrete and an Introduction to the Alkali-Silica Reaction." An Independent Study Report prepared in partial fklfilknent of the Master of Science Degree, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Warzyn Laboratory (199la). "Results of Analysis of Columbia Generating Station Fly Ash Units I & 2." Madison, WI. Warzyn Laboratory (199 lb). "Results of Analysis of Rock River Generating Station Cyclone Fly Ash Units 1 & 2." Madison, WI. 1989 Wisconsin Act 335, "1989 Senate Bill 30W, p. 34, Sections: 159.07(3)(d), 159.97(4)(d)and 159.07(7)(a). Wisconsin Power and Light Company (1994). 'Fly Ash Analysis." Rock River-Blackhawk Generating Station, Beloit, WI. Wisconsin Electric Power Company (1993). "Fly Ash Analysis." Edgewater Units 3 & 4, Sheboygan, WI.

TABLE A3.1.1. CEMENT AND POWDERED GLASS

CHARACTERISTICS. Class c3 Fly Ash

LOW-~lkali' ~od-Mkali2 Cement Cement

9 6 by Weight
SiOz
N203

20.6 4.7 2.7 2.7 62.8 2.2 0.10 0.90

--

Fe203

so3
CaO MgO Moisture Content Loss on Ignition Na2O K20 Total Alk. as.Na20 Specific Gravity

--

0.50 3.15 3.15 2.43

Holnam Cement Corp. (1993)

LaFarge Corp. (1991)

Warzyn (1991a)

Class F~ Class F' class F~ ~ ~ ~ i c powdered5 a l ~ Silica Fume Glass Fly Ash F1 Fly Ash F2 Fly Ash F3

Chmid Compmitiaa % h_u W e a t SiO2

= 92
= 67

37.02

39.44

31.42

Fez03 CaO

so3

p205 Moisture Content Loss on Ignition Na20 K20 Total Alkalis as Na20 Specific Gravity

-= 0.0 = 1.6
= 0.4

--

0.37 0.05 0.20 4.37 1.19 5.15 2.72

0.33 0.10 3.79 2.43 1.36 3.32 2.64

0.28 0.10 15.18 1.48 1.33 2.36 2.30

0.05
-=

15

= 0.7

= 1.4

= 16
= 2.35

2.15

ACI Committee 226 (1987a)

Typical composition of container glass from Figg (198 1) W & L (1991)

'W & L (1994)

WEPCO (1994)

0.001

0.01 Particle Size (mm)

FIGURE A3.1.1. GRADATIONS OF CEMENTS, FLYASHES, POWDERED GLASS AND SILICA FUME.

APPENDIX 3.2 VAFUABLE PARAMETERS OF THE CONCRETE MIXES

TABLE A3.2.1. VARIABLE PARAMETERS OF THE GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES.
-

Batch(s)

Fine Glass Type I % of Total Aggr

Coarse Glass Type I % of Total Aggr

Fly Ash Type I % of Total

(C

Cement Type

WR Type

Air Entmd.

+J)

None None FBI 10% FA/10% FA/10% None None None None FA/4% FA/4% FA/8% FA/4% None

CA/48% None CBl38% CA/38% CA/38% None None None None CA/8% CN8% CA/16% CA/8% None

F 1120% None F1120% F 1120% Cl20% F 1120% F1125% F 1130% F1/35% None F 1120% None F1125% None

Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod

None None None None None None None None None None None None None None

TABLE A3.2.1. VARIABLE PARAMETERS OF THE GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES (CONTINUED) Batch(s) Fine Glass Type 1 % of Total Aggr Coarse Glass Type I % of Total Aggr Fly Ash Type I % of Total
(C

Cement Type Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod

WR Type
None None None None None None None None None None None None None None

Air Entmd.

+f)

F1/30% None None F1/35% F1/20% F1/25% F 1120% F1/30% F1/35% F1/25% 86, 87, 88,89 90, 91, 92,93 94,95, 96,97 98,99, 100,101 FA/13% FA/13% FA/10% FA/lO% CA/23% CA/23% CC/38% CC/38% F1/30% F1/35% F 1120% F1/25%

No No No No

TABLE A3.2.1. VARIABLE PARAMETERS OF THE GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES.(CONTINUED) Batch(s) Fine Glass Type / % of Total Aggr FA/10% FA/10% FA/lO% FA/18% FA/18% FA/18% FA/18% FA/18% FC/8% None Coarse Glass Type / % of Total Aggr CC/38% CC/38% CC/38% CC/72% CC/72% CC/72% CC/72% CD/72% CE/16% None Fly Ash Type / % of Total (C +f) F1/30% None F1/35% None F1/20% F1/25% F1/30% F1/35% C/25% None Cement Type Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod

WR Type
None None None None None None None None None None

Air Entrnd.
No No No No No No No No No No

102, 103, 104,105 106, 107, 108, 109 110, 111, 112, 113 114, 115, 116, 117 118, 119, 120,121 122, 123, 124, 125 126, 127, 128, 129 130, 131, 132, 133 134, 135, 136 137, 138, 139

140, 141, 142 143, 144, 145 146, 147, 148 149, 150, 151

None FC/4% FC/8% FC/8%

None CE/8% CE/16% CE/ 16%

None F 1120% F1/25% F1/30%

Low Low Low Low

None None None None

Yes Yes Yes Yes

TABLE A3.2.1. VARAIBLE PARAMETERS OF THE GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES. (CONTINUED) Batch(s) Fine Glass Type/ % of Total Aggr Coarse Glass Type/ % of Total Aggr Fly Ash Type / % of Total
(C

Cement Type Low Low Low

WR Type
None None High High High High High None High Med High High

Air Entrnd.

+fi
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

None None FF/24% ~~124% None FG/20% None None None None None None None None None

Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

TABLE A3.2.2. VARIABLE PARAMEERS OF THE FIELDTRIAL. Section Fine Glass Type / % of Total Aggr. None FI/20% FI/lO% FI/20% FI/20% None Fly Ash Type 1 % of Total AggrNone F3/20% F3/15% F2/25% F2/20% F2/20%

WR Type
None High High High High High

1 2 3
4

5
6

TABLE A3.2.3. VARIABLE PARAMETERS OF THE POWDERED GLASS SERIES. Batch Fine Glass Type Powdered Glass / % of Total % of Cement AggrW20% None None FI/20% W20% FI/20% FI/20% FI/20% None None None 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 20%

VARIABLE PARAMETERS OF THE ACCELERATED ASR EXPANSION MORTAR MIXES

TABLE A3.3.1. VARAIBLE PARAMETERS OF THE ACCELERATED ASR EXPANSION SERIES. Mix No(s) Glass Type / % of Total Aggr
None

Fly Ash Type 1 % of Total ( c +f)

None None None

Powdered Glass % of Cement None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None

w/(c +f)

FJ/100%
None None

F2/20% F2/20% F2/15% F2/25%

None

FJ/20% FJ/10% FJ/20% FJ/100%

None

F3/20% F3/20% F3/25%

None None None None None None None None

FJ/20% FJ/20% FJ/50%

None

FJ/5% FJ/10% FJ/20% FJ/40% FJl7O% FJ/100%

TABLE A3.3.1. VARAIBLE PARAMETERS OF THE ACCELERATED ASR EXPANSION SERIES. (CONTINUED)

Mix No(s)
801 802 803 804 805 806 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208

Glass Type / % of Total Aggr FJ/40% FJ/40% FJ/40% FJ/40% FJ/40% FJ/40% FJ/20% FJ/20% FJ/20% FJ/20% FJ/20%

Fly Ash Type / % of Total (c +f) None None None None None None None None None None None

Powdered Glass % of Cement None 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 20% 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 20%

wl(c +f) 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43

APPENDIX4.1 MIX AND FRESH CONCRETE RESULTS

TABLE 4.1.1. GLASS-FLY ASH SERIES MIX AND FRESHCONCRETE RESULTS.
Batch(s)

WI(C +f)

(mm) Slump

(kg/m3) Unit Wt.

Air Content

( m ~ m ~ / l~% ir) AE Admx.

TABLE A4.1.1.

GLAss-FL,~'ASHSERIES MIX AND FRESH C O N CRESULTS. ~ (co-1 WI(C +fi

Batch(s)

(mm>
Slump

(kg/m3> Unit Wt.

Air Content

(mvrn3/l% ~ir) AE Admx.

TABLE A4.1.1.
Batch(s)

GLASS-FLY ASH SERIES MIX AND FFESH CONCRE~E RESULTS. ( c o r n ) WI(C +fi

(mm>
Slump

(kg/m3> Unit Wt.

Air Content

(m~m~/l '0) % AE Admx.

TABLE A4.1.2. FIELDRUAL MIX AND FRESH CONCRETE RESULTS.

Section 1 wl(c +J) 0.49

(mm>
Slump 90

(kg/m3) Unit Wt. 2294

Air Content 7.0%

(mum3/l% ~ i r > AE A h . 48

GLASS SERIES MIX AND FRESH CONCREIE RESULTS. A4.1.3. POWDERED

Batch(s) WI(C +J)

(m) Slump

(kg/m3) Unit Wt.

Air Content

(mum3/l% ~ i r ) AE Admx.

A U compressive strength results are adjusted to a nominal entrained air content of 6.0%.
Tabulated values are averages of several specimens.

A4.2.1. GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH RESULTS. TABLE

Batch No(s). Strength (MPa) at Age (days): 7

28

90

180

365

Batch No(s).

Strength (MPa) at Age (days): 7 28

90

180

365

TABLE A4.2.1. GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH RESULTS. (CONTINUED)

Batch No(s). Strength (MPa) at Age (days):

A l l compressive strength results are adjusted to a nominal entrained air content of 6.0%.
Tabulated values are averages of several specimens.

Section

Strength (MPa) at Age (days): 7 28 90 180 365

A l l compressive strength results are adjusted to a nominal entrained a i r content of 6.0%.

Tabulated values are averages of several specimens.

Section

Strength (MPa) at Age (days): 7 28 120 365

A l l compressive strength results are adjusted to a nominal entrained air content of 6.0%.
Tabulated values are averages of several specimens.

Batch(s)

Strength (MPa) at Age (days): 7 14

28

56

90

Section

Strength (MPa) at Age (days):

28 120

365

Mix No.

Strength (MPa) at Age (days):

7
14

28

56

90

APPENDE4.4 CONCRETE PRISM ASR EXPANSION RESULTS

TABLE A4.4.1. GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES CONCRETE PRISM ASR EXPANSION RESULTS.
Batch No(s). Prism Expansion (x0.00 1%) at Age (days): 7 28 112 365 730 1095

0 NIA NIA NIA 4 I1 4 4 3 3 2 0 3 5 4 5 6 8

0 NIA NIA NIA

1

0 NIA NIA NIA 0 6 9 7 5 18 8 24 11 12 10 40

32

0 NIA NIA NIA 0 3 13 8 6 21 10 58 16 17 13 118 110 18

0 NIA NIA NIA 0 0 16 9 6 25 11 106 18 20 15 305 265 21

0 NIA

8 6 6 4 10 5 0 5 6
6

22 9 11

14

TABLE A4.4.1. GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES CONCRETE PRISM ASR EXPANSION RESLTLTS . (CONTINUED)
Batch No(s).

Prism Expansion ( ~ 0 . 0 0 1 % at ) Age (days): 7 28 112 365 730 1095

TABLE A4.4.1. GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES CONCRETE PRISM ASR RESULTS. (CONTINUED) EXPANSION Batch No(s). Prism Expansion (x0.001 %) at Age (days): 7 28 112 365 730 1095

TABLE A4.4.2. FIELD TRIAL CONCRETE PRISM ASR EXPANSION RESULTS. Section Prism Expansion (~0.001%) at Age (days):

14

28

56

112

224

365

F'REEZE/THAW RESULTS
TABLE A4.5.1. STIFFNESSR E T BY ~ GLASS-FLY &H SERIES DURING Ffl TESTING. Batch(s) (GPa) Initial D YE~ S t f i e s s Retained (%) at Age (cycles):

TABLE A4.5.2. WHGH~ REZNNEDBY GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES DURING Fm TESTING. Batch(s) (kg) Initial Weight Weight Retained (%) at Age (cycles):

TABLE A4.5.3. STIFFNESS RETAINED BY FIELD TRIAL DURING F/T TESTING. Section (MPa) Initial D YE ~ Stfiess Retained (%) at Age (cycles):

TABLE A4.5.4. WEIGHT RETAINED BY FIELDTRIAL DURING F/T TESTING. Section (kg) Initial Weight Weight Retained (%) at Age (cycles):

TABLE A4.5.5. STIFFNESS RETAINED BY POWDERED GLASS SERTES DURING Fm TESTING. Batch (hPa) Initial D YE~ Stfiess Retained (%) at Age (cycles):

Batch

(kg) Initial Weight

Weight Retained (%) at Age (cycles):

APPENDIX 4.6 ACCELERATED ASR EXPANSION RESULTS

TABLE A4.6.1. ACCEEMT'F,D ASR EXPANSION RESULTS.
Batch

Expansion (~0.001%) at Age (days):

11

13

14

TABLE A4.6.1. ACCELE.RA'IED ASR EXPANSION RESULTS. (CONTINUED)

Batch Expansion (x0.001 %) at Age (days): 1 3

11

13

14