Concrete Mixture Designs for

OHare Modernization Plan

University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign)

Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering

Chicago OHare
January 12, 2006
 Project Goal

Investigate cost-effective concrete properties and

pavement design features required to achieve long-
term rigid pavement performance at Chicago
OHare International.
 Project Team

Principal Investigators
Prof. Jeff Roesler
Prof. David Lange

Students
Cristian Gaedicke
Sal Villalobos
Zach Grasley
Rob Rodden
 Project Objectives
Develop concrete material constituents and
proportions for airfield concrete mixes
Strength
volume stability
fracture properties

Develop / improve models to predict concrete

material behavior
Crack width and shrinkage

Evaluate material properties and structural design

interactions
joint type & joint spacing (curling and load transfer)
Saw-cut timing
 Project Objectives

Material
Analysis of existing
constituents and
concrete mix designs
mix design
Long-term
Laboratory tests Concrete properties perfor-
mance at
Modeling ORD
Test for material
properties

Optimal joint types

and spacing.
FY2005 Accomplishments
Tech Notes (TN) - www.cee.uiuc.edu/research/ceat
TN2: PCC Mix Design
TN3: Fiber Reinforced Concrete for Airfield Rigid
Pavements
TN4: Feasibility of Shrinkage Reducing Admixtures for
Concrete Runway Pavements
TN11: Measurement of Water Content in Fresh
Concrete Using the Microwave Method
TN12: Guiding Principles for the Optimization of the
OMP PCC Mix Design
TN15: Evaluation, testing and comparison between
crushed manufactured sand and natural sand
TN16: Concrete Mix Design Specification Evaluation
TN17: PCC Mix Design Phase 1
 TN2: PCC Mix Design
Proposed Revised Proposed Mix K-5
Mix #1933
Mix Id. Mix #1905 Mix #1905 Mix #1994 003- Units
(2000)
(2000) (2000) (2000) 00(2004)
Water 280 262 280 262 258 lb/yd3
Type I Cement 541 588 588 588 541 lb/yd3
Type C Fly Ash 135 100 100 130 135 lb/yd3
Coarse aggregate (# 57
1850 1850 1850 1800 1840 lb/yd3
Limestone, 1" max size. )
Fine aggregate 1125 1103 1115 1100 1117 lb/yd3
Steel Fibers 0 0 0 85 0 lb/yd3
Air entrainment admixture
N/A 7 N/A N/A 6.8 oz/yd3
(Excel Air)
Water Reducer (Excel Redi
29 15 28 29 30.4 oz/yd3
Set)

Proposed Revised Proposed Mix K-5

Properties Mix #1905 Mix #1905 Mix #1933 Mix #1904 Units
003-00
W/CM 0.41 0.38 0.41 0.36 0.38 -
fr7 N/A 788 802 N/A 770 psi
fr28 N/A 1030 842 N/A 855 psi
Air 5-8 5-8 5-7 5-8 6.2 %
Slump 2 3 +/- 1 3 +/- 1 3 +/- 1 1 in
 Survey of Existing Mixes
Capital St. louis St. louis St. louis St. louis St. louis St. louis St. louis St. louis Fort Californ Califor
Airport
Airport Lambert Lambert Lambert Lambert Lambert Lambert Lambert Lambert Wayne ia nia
Mix 4 F Mix 5 F
Mix Id. N/A Mix 1 F Mix 4 F Mix 3 F Mix 5 F Mix 6 F Mix P 5 Mix 1 Mix 1 Mix 2
w/ fibers w/fibers
Water 233 250 258 258 248 258 258 258 250 218 300 258 lb/yd3
Cement 490 510 535 535 354 310 310 372 680 288 489 479 lb/yd3
Type C Fly Ash 150 80 80 80 88 93 93 93 - 192 122 85 lb/yd3
GGBS - - - - 148 217 217 155 - - - - lb/yd3
Coarse aggregate #1 1842 1866 1834 1834 1872 1808 1808 1836 1790 1424 1570 1400 lb/yd3
Coarse aggregate #2 - - - - - - - - - 615 400 475 lb/yd3
Fine aggregate 1156 1225 1220 1220 1228 1232 1232 1206 1280 1198 1165 1310 lb/yd3
Fibers - - - 3 - - 3 - - - - lb/yd3
Air entrainment admixture N/A 5.6 5.6 5.6 3 3.1 3.1 3.1 N/A N/A N/A 1.7 oz/yd3
Water Reducer 19.6 14.2 14.2 14.2 17.7 18.6 18.6 18.6 N/A N/A N/A 16.92 oz/yd3

Materials Properties
Cement Type I I I I I I I I I I I II
Coarse aggregate # 1 max.
N/A 3/4" (#67) 3/4" (#67) 3/4" (#67) 3/4" (#67) 3/4" (#67) 3/4" (#67) 3/4" (#67) 3/4" (#67) 1" (57) 1" (57) 1" (57)
size. (in)
Coarse aggregate # 2 max. 1/2 x
- - - - - - - - - 3/8" 3/8"
size. (in) #4"
River River River River River River N/A,FM N/A,FM Sechelt
Fine aggregate type N/A River Sand River Sand
Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand Sand = 2.68 = 2.96 Sand
Polychen Polychen Polychen Polychen Polychen Polychen Polychen
AEA type AEA Grace GRT AEA N/A N/A MBAE
AE VRC AE VRC AE VRC AE VRC AE VRC AE VRC AE VRC
Daracem Polychen Polychen Polychen Polychen Polychen Polychen Polychen GRT KB Pozz
WR type N/A N/A
Grace MC 400 MC 400 MC 400 MC 400 MC 400 MC 400 MC 400 1000 200N
GRT GRT
Fiber type - - - Polymesh - - Polymesh - - - - -
fibers fibers

Concrete Properties Units

W/CM 0.36 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.37 0.45 0.49 0.46 -
fr28 770 1033 850 905 700 675 675 675 1280 N/A N/A 767 psi
Air 5.5 7.6 7 7 5 5 5 5 6 N/A N/A 3 %
Slump 4 1/2" 2" 3 3/4 " 3 3/4 " 1 1/4 " 3" 3" 3" 1 1/2" N/A N/A 3 1/4" in
 Tech Note 3
Fiber Reinforced Concrete for Airfield
Rigid Pavements
225

Plain
200 0.48% Synthetic Macro Fiber
0.32% Synthetic Macro Fiber

175

150
Load (kN)

125

100

75

50

25

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Average Interior Maximum Surface Deflection (mm)

Final cost: reduction of 6% to an increase of 11%

 Tech Note 4
Feasibility of Shrinkage Reducing Admixtures
for Concrete Runway Pavements
Reduced Shrinkage and Cracking Potential ~ 50% reduction
Cost limitations (?)

Figure 1. Unrestrained shrinkage of mortar bars, w/c = 0.5 (Brooks et al. 2000)
 Tech Note 11

Measurement of Water Content in Fresh

Concrete Using the Microwave Method
Strengths: quick, simple, and inexpensive

Limitations: need accurate information on

cement content
aggregate moisture and absorption capacity
 TN 12: Guiding Principles for the
Optimization of the OMP PCC Mix Design

1st order:
Strength, workability
2nd Order:
Shrinkage, fracture properties
LTE & strength gain
 Tech Note 15
Evaluation, testing and comparison between
crushed manufactured sand and natural sand Gradation According to ASTM C-33

Gradation 100
Manufactured Sand(ms)
Natural Sand(ns)
ASTM Fine

physical properties 80
ASTM Coarse

Finness Modulus

PERCENTAGE PASSING.
ms = 3.12
ns = 2.64

60

40

20

0
200 100 50 30 16 8 4 0.375
ASTM SIEVE NUMBER

ASTM C-128 ASTM C-29

Bulk density Bulk density

Material BSG(ssd) BSG(dry) AC(%) % Voids
dry(kg/m3) ssd(kg/m3)

Manufactured sand 2.7 2.63 2.59 1628 1670 38.1

Natural sand 2.43 2.38 2.15 1703 1740 28.3
Manufactured vs Natural Sand

Visual evaluation
Material retained in
the #8 sieve shows
difference in the
particle shape
4mm
500mm

The Manufactured
sand shows a rough
surface and sharp
edges due to the
4mm
crushing action to
500mm
which it was
subjected.
Sieve No. 8 Sieve No. 50
 Tech Note 16

Concrete Mix Design Specification

Evaluation
Preliminary P-501 evaluation
Strength, shrinkage, and material constituent
contents
P-501 Guidelines Our View
max w/cm = 0.50 Ok
3
Min cement content = 500 lb/yd This could be lower
min flexural strength = 600 psi @ 28 d 700 ok, could be 90 d
fly ash content range = 10-20% Ok
fly ash + slag range = 25-55% Ok
max slag when temp < 55 F = 30% Ok
air content = 5.5% for 1.5" topsize CA Ok
air content = 6.0% for 0.75" topsize CA Ok
2005 Accomplishments

Specification Assistance
On-site meetings at OMP headquarters
Brown bag seminars

Continued specification assistance (2006):

Material constituents (aggregate type and size, SCM, etc.)
Modulus of rupture and fracture properties of concrete
Shrinkage (cement content, w/c ratio limits,etc.)
Saw-cut timing, spacing and depth
Pavement design
PCC Mix Evaluation Phase II
Effect of aggregate size (0.75 vs. 1.5)
Effect of 1.5 coarse aggregate:
Total cementitious content:
688 lb/yd3, 571 lb/yd3, 555 lb/yd3 and 535 lb/yd3
Water / cementitious ratio:
0.38 versus 0.44
Fly Ash / cementitious ratio:
14.5% versus 0%

Effect of coarse aggregate cleaniness

PCC Mix Evaluation Phase II
Testing
Fresh concrete properties
Slump, Air Content, Unit Weight
Mechanical Testing
Compressive strength (fc) at 7 and 28 days
Modulus of Elasticity (E) at 7 and 28 days
Split tensile strength (fsp) at 7 and 28 days
Modulus of Rupture (MOR) at 7 and 28 days
Volume Stability Testing
Drying and Autogenous Shrinkage trends for 28+ days
Fracture tests
Early-ages (<48 hrs)
Mature age (28 days)
Mixture design nomenclature

9 mixes were prepared:

555.44 555.44 st 688.38 688.38 st

AAA.BB **
**max aggregate size
Cementitious w/cm
content (17%FA) st = 0.75
lbs/cy Otherwise 1.5
 Phase II Mix Design Results
688.38 (1.5" 688.38
CA) CLEAN standard 688.44 688.38 571.44 571.38 571.44 Nof 535.44 555.44
ID AGG (3/4 " CA) (1.5" CA) (1.5" CA) (1.5" CA) (1.5" CA) (1.5" CA) (1.5" CA) (1.5" CA)
water (lb/yd3) 261 262 303 261 251 217 251 235 244
cement (lb/yd3) 588 588 588 588 488 488 571 535 455
fly ash (lb/yd3) 100 100 100 100 83 83 0 0 100
CA (lb/yd3) 1842 1850 1772 1842 1924 1982 1938 1984 1942
FA (lb/yd3) 1083 1103 1042 1083 1132 1166 1140 1167 1142
AEA (oz/yd3) 19.4 12.7 19.4 19.4 16.1 16.1 16.1 15.1 15.6
w/cm 0.38 0.38 0.44 0.38 0.44 0.38 0.44 0.44 0.44
CA/ FA 1.7 1.68 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
cm 688 688 688 688 570.96 570.96 571 535 555
w/c 0.44 0.45 0.51 0.44 0.51 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.54
Fl\y Ash/ CM 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.18

Slump (in) 6.13 7.63 9.00 6.25 7.38 2.50 2.25 8.63 7.88
Air (%) 7.0 6.5 6.0 8.0 2.9 7.3 6.5 2.9 3.7
Density (pcf) 143.8 145.1 141.8 141.8 150.4 143.9 146.2 150.9 150.2

fs7 (psi) 362 526 275 440 412 416 505 390 480
fs28 (psi) #DIV/0! 570 423 454 513 429 524 415 490
fc7 (psi) 3,393 4,045 3,267 3,241 3,608 3,369 3,329 2,338 3,327
fc28 (psi) #DIV/0! 4,217 4,131 3,785 4,344 3,744 5,366 3,369 4,212
Ec7 (psi) 3,236 3,476 4,177 4,031 3,879 4,224 3,326 3,426 3,692
Ec28 (psi) #DIV/0! 3,752 3,695 3,438 4,204 3,881 3,958 3,311 4,209
MOR28 (psi) #DIV/0! 802 668 639 688 651 794 619 663
 Strength Summary
Mixture ID 688.38ST 688.38 571.44 555.44
Coarse Aggregate Size (in) 0.75 1.5 1.5 1.5
Coarse Aggregate (lb/yd3) 1850 1842 1938 1942
Fine Aggregate (lb/yd3) 1103 1083 1140 1142
Water (lb/yd3) 262 261 251 244
Cement (lb/yd3) 588 588 571 455
Fly ash (lb/yd3) 100 100 0 100
Air (oz/yd3) 12.7 19.4 16.1 15.6
Slump (in.) 7.5 6.25 2.25 8.0
Air Content (%) 6.5 8 6.5 3.7
Unit Weight (lb/ft3) 145.1 141.8 146.2 150.2

Mixture ID 688.38ST 688.38 571.44 555.44

fsp28 (psi) 570 454 524 490
MOR28 (psi) 802 639 794 663
E28 (ksi) 3,752 3,438 3,958 4,209
 Shrinkage Results Phase II
Total and Autogenous shrinkage
Experimental Shrinkage Data for all Mixes
0.6
688.38ST Total 688.44 Total 688.44 Autog. 688.38 Total

0.5 688.38 Autog. 571.44 Total 571.38 Total 571.38 Autog.

571.44 NF Total 535.44 Total 555.44 Total

0.4
Shrinkage (mm/m)

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

-0.1
Age of Concrete (days)
Drying Shrinkage Phase II
Total Shrinkage vs. Age

500
Shrinkage (microstrain)..

400

300

\
200
688.38 st
688.38
100
571.44
555.44
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Concrete Age (days)

Mixture ID 688.38 st 688.38 571.44 555.44

sh3 (microstrain) 48 118 139 52
sh7 (microstrain) 193 233 250 158
sh14 (microstrain) 292 338 320 273
sh28 (microstrain) 417 405 380 335
Fracture Energy Phase II
GF = cracking resistance of material
GF = joint surface roughness indicator
Load vs Displacement

4000
Peak
3500
Load
3000

2500
Load (N)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
CMOD (mm)

GF = Area under the Curve

Cracking Area
 WST Test

The WST Specimen 30mm

80mm 40mm 80mm Notch detail
57mm

2mm

200 mm

b t
a
205mm

200 mm a = a/b
Testing Plan 4 Mixtures

Wedge splitting specimens (7)

6, 8, 10, 12 and 24 hours
7 and 28 days

Cylinders for compression and split tensile

strength for 1,7 and 28 days and E values for 7
and 28 days

MOR for 28 days

Fracture Plots of PCC mixtures
555.44st 688.38st

2000 2500
6hrs
8hrs 6hrs
2000 8 hrs
10hrs
1500 10 hrs
12 hrs
12 hrs
1 day
FORCE(N)

Force(N)
1500 1 day
7 day
7 day
1000
28 day
1000

500
500

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
COD(mm)
COD(mm)

555.44 688.38

2500 2500
6hrs
8hrs
8 hrs 2000
2000 10hrs
10 hrs
12hrs
12 hrs

FORCE(N)
FORCE(N)

1500 1 day
1500 24 hrs
7 day
7days
28 day
28 days 1000
1000

500
500

0
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
COD(mm)
COD(mm)
Fracture Energy Results-Phase II
Age = 28-days Load vs. CMOD curves for Wedge Splitting Samples

3000

688.38st
2500 688.38
555.44

2000

Fv (N)
1500

1000

500

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
CMOD(mm)

Mixture ID 688.38 st 688.38 571.44 555.44

GF (Nm) 156 166 N/A 161
 Concrete Brittleness

EGF
Characteristic Length lch 2
fsp

Mixture ID 688.38ST 688.38 571.44 555.44

fsp28 (psi) 570 454 524 490
E28 (ksi) 3,752 3,438 3,958 4,209
GF (Nm) @ 28-day 156 166 N/A 161
lch (in) 10.3 15.8 N/A 16.1

Less brittle mixes

w/ larger MSA
 GF vs Joint Performance

Fracture Energy Shear Stiffness Chupanit & Roesler (2005)

Joint Performance
*need crack width!

Mixture ID 688.38ST 688.38 571.44 555.44

MOR28 (psi) 802 639 794 663
GF (Nm) @ 1-day 111 155 N/A 126
GF (Nm) @ 28-day 156 166 N/A 161
 PCC Mix Design Phase II
Summary*
Larger aggregates reduce strength by 20%
28-day GF similar similar cracking resistance
Larger aggregates reduce concrete brittleness
1-day fracture energy with larger MSA
greater joint stiffness / performance
No significant shrinkage difference

TNXX February 2006

*Roesler, J., Gaedicke, C., Lange, Villalobos, S., Rodden, R., and Grasley, Z. (2006), Mechanical
Properties of Concrete Pavement Mixtures with Larger Size Coarse Aggregate, accepted for
publication in ASCE 2006 Airfield and Highway Pavement Conference , Atlanta, GA.
Saw-cut timing and depth
Stress analysis of slab (temp & shrink)
Size Effect (fracture) Model
Concrete Material Fracture Parameters
Wedge Splitting Test @ early ages
No method to obtain Critical Stress Intensity
Factor (KIC) and Critical Crack Tip Opening
Displacement (CTOCC) for WST

FEM MODEL FOR THE WST SPECIMEN

Saw-cut timing and depth
Fracture Parameters
WST specimen
80mm 40mm 80mm
Notch detail

30mm
200 mm

57mm

2mm
b
a t
205mm

a = a/b
200 mm
Saw-cut timing and depth
FEM Model
Special Mesh
around crack
tip

200 mm
Q8 elements
Symmetry and 100 mm
BC consi-
derations
Saw-cut timing and depth
FEM Model Quarter
point
Stress around crack tip nodes

Calculation of KI
 FEM ANALISYS

FEM MODELING OF THE WST

Psmax = peak splitting load
KIC = critical SIF
P
K IC smax1/2 * f1 (a ) CTODc= critical CTOD
t *b
CMODc= critical CMOD
2
CTOD f 3 (a ) * CMOD CTODC * E f1(a) = geometrical factor 1
cf
32 K IC f2(a) = geometrical factor 2
Psp
CMOD * f 2 (a ) f3(a) = geometrical factor 3
t *E
E = modulus of elasticity
Gf = initial fracture energy
2
K IC
Gf
E
 Evolution of GF vs Age
Fracture energy Vs Age

175
555.44 1.5 max aggregate size
150 555.44st
688.38
688.38st
125
Gf(N-m)

100

75

50

25

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Age(hours)

Fracture energy Vs Age

200

180
555.44
160 555.44st
688.38
140

120
688.38st Large increase in GF between 8 and
Gf(N-m)

100 24 hrs (saw-cutting operations).

80

60

40

20

0
1 10 100 1000
Age(hrs)
Saw-Cut Timing Model
Concrete E and fracture properties(cf ,KIC) at early ages.
Using Bazants Size Effect Model to analyze finite size slabs.
Develop curves of nominal strength vs notch depth for timing.
Nominal strength vs ao/d for the 300mm slab
1.20

ls@6hr
1.00
ls@12hr
Nominal strength

rg@6hr
0.80 rg@12hr

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600

ao/d

After Soares (1997)

 Joint Type Analysis

How can we rationally choose dowel vs.

aggregate interlock joint type & joint
spacing?

Need to predict crack width & LTE

Shrinkage, zero-stress temperature, creep
Aggregate size and type (GF)
Slab length & base friction
Reduced aggregate interlock with
small max. size CA

Dowels deemed necessary

Crack width, w
Larger max. size CA

Larger aggregate top size increases aggregate

interlock and improves load transfer

Crack width, w
Crack Width Model Approach
Step 2: Predict Step 3: Step 4:
Step 1: Predict
differential Determine Acceptable
crack opening, w
deflection, diff LTE LTE?

Inputs:
Inputs: Inputs: Inputs:
FAA
RH, T, L, E, , C w, CA topsize, free, diff,
recommendation

c2i f i
CWi CC L SHRi a PCC T
E
PCC i
*after DG2002
Crack spacing
Drying shrinkage L U m P 2 L
f C 0 1 f
Temperature drop i c1i d b h 2
Restraints
Base friction
Curling (thermal and moisture)
Steel reinforcement
 Step 1: Predicting crack width
opening, w

Average
increase
with age
due to
shrinkage
Future Joint Analysis Questions

What is an acceptable LTE?

What is LTE when dowels are removed?

Can joint spacing be increase from 18.75 to 25 ft?

How much can LTE be changed by concrete

property changes?
Project Tasks and Progress
Status
Literature Review
Done,
Survey of existing mix designs TN2, 3, 4, 15
Review of mix design strategies Done, TN 12

Volume Stability Tests Done

Drying and Autogenous shrinkage
Optimization of concrete mixes to Done,
reduce volumetric changes TN 12 and TN 17.

Strength Testing Done, TN 12,

Modulus of rupture, splitting and TN 17, conf.
compressive strength paper
Fracture energy and fracture surface Fracture Tests
roughness Done
Project Tasks and Progress

Joint Type Design

In progress, TN 3.
Slab size and jointing plans: Analysis pending,
fracture and
productivity, cost, performance. shrinkage tests
done.
Optimization of concrete
aggregate interlock to ensure In progress,
TN 12.
shear transfer. Fracture tests

Joint (crack) width prediction

In progress
model for concrete materials.
Project Tasks and Progress

Saw-cut timing and depth FEM model

Saw-cut timing criteria for
the expected materials
Analytical model / Validation
developed to obtain
fracture results from
WST samples,
currently applying
results to determine
saw-cut timing and
depth.

Fiber Reinforced Concrete

Materials
Literature
Overview of structural fibers Review done,
for rigid pavement TN 3.
New Work for FY2006
Functionally-layered concrete pavements
Multi-functional rigid pavement
Cost saving

GREEN-CRETE
Recycled concrete aggregate
Effect of recycled aggregate on mechanical and
volumetric properties of concrete
 Current work:
Recycled Concrete as Aggregates (RCA)
for new Concrete
Recycled Concrete Aggregate
 Use of RCA for OMP

RCA may lead to cost savings

Disposal costs
Trucking costs
Natural aggregate costs
RCA may increase shrinkage?
RCA less stiff than natural aggregate
RCA can shrink more than natural aggregate
Shrinkage may be same or reduced if RCA is
presoaked to provide internal curing
 UIUC First Trial

RCA from Champaign recycling plant

Concrete came from pavements, parking garages, etc.
Mix of materials with unknown properties

Material washed, dried, and sieved to match natural

fine aggregate

Soaked for 24 hrs, surface dried, and then 100%

replacement of natural fine aggregate
Saturated RCA vs Lab Aggregates

20

0
Shrinkage strain x 10-6

lab stock
-20 lab ssd
RCA SSD
-40

-60

-80

-100
0 5 10 15 20
Age (d)

Similar autogenous shrinkage curves

 RCA Summary to Date

Optimization of RCA gradation may lead to

reduction in overall shrinkage
Other concerns:
Reduced concrete strength and modulus
Potential for ASR from RCA?
Source of chlorides to cause corrosion of dowels?
Future work - use RCA with known properties
Try different gradations
Measure strength/fracture properties also
 Functionally Layered
Concrete Pavement

T, RH
P
Functions

Wear Resistant

h E(z), (z), (z), k(z), (z), D(z) Shrinkage Resistant

Fatigue Resistant
z

Support Layers

Porous Concrete Friction/Noise Layer

h1, E1, 1, 1, k1, 1, D1 No fibers

h2, E2, 2, 2, k2, 2, D2 fB = 0.1% Shrinkage Resistant Layer

h3, E3, 3, 3, k3, 3, D3 fA = 0.25%

Fatigue Resistant Layers
h4, E4, 4, 4, k4, 4, D4 fA = 0.5%

Support Layers
 Functionally Layered
Concrete Pavement
Experimental Program:
P
(a) (b)
Top layer h1
Top layer
h
Bottom layer ao h2

CMOD
Bottom layer

PCC / FRCCS FRCCS /

Configuration ID PCC/PCC PCC/FRCPP FRCPP/PCC FRCPP/FRCPP
FRCCS / PCC FRCCS
Top layer (h1) PCC PCC FRCPP FRCPP PCC FRCPP FRCPP
Bottom layer (h2) PCC FRCPP PCC FRCPP FRCPP PCC FRCPP
Type of specimen TPB WST TPB WST TPB WST TPB WST TPB TPB TPB
# of specimens 3/3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3
 Functionally Layered
Concrete Pavement
Structural Synthetic Fibers in Beams

Top layer h1
h
Bottom layer ao h2

CMOD
 Functionally Layered
Concrete Pavement
Steel Fibers in Beams

Top layer h1
h
Bottom layer ao h2

CMOD
 Functionally Layered
Concrete Pavement
Synthetic Fibers in WST Specimen
Project Tasks and Progress

Recycled Concrete Aggregate

(RCA)
Review of previous experiences In progress
with RCA
Experimental program, and test In progress
to determine effect of RCA on
relevant mix properties
Project Tasks and Progress
Functionally Layered Concrete
Pavement Literature
Overview of structural fibers for Review done,
TN 3.
rigid pavement
Done,
Layered pavement systems- preliminary
preliminary study results show
potential
Fracture resistance of two layer
concrete pavement systems In progress
2006 First Quarter Deliverables

TN - Phase II concrete mix evaluation

Large aggregate mixtures paper (ASCE)

TN Fracture Properties of Concrete

Mixtures (WST)
Saw-cut timing and depth
FEM Model
Determination of Fracture parameters
f1 (a ) Psmax
K IC Psmax * K IC * f1 (a )
t * b1/2 t * b1/2
f1 vs a/b
5.0

y = 9.8214x - 1.4584
4.5 R2 = 0.9779

4.0
f1

3.5

y = 25.598x 2 - 15.757x + 4.8066

3.0 R2 = 0.9996

2.5

2.0
0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.60
a/w
 Saw-cut timing and depth
FEM Model
Determination of Fracture parameters
f 2 (a ) CMOD
Psp
* f 2 (a )
CMOD Psp * t *E
t *E

CTOD f 3 (a ) * CMOD
f2 vs a/b f3 vs a/b
80.0 0.4

70.0 y = 207.07x - 58.121 0.35

R2 = 0.9736 y = 1.2088x - 0.3456
60.0 0.3 R2 = 0.9847

50.0 0.25
f2

f3
40.0 0.2
y = -3.3883x 2 + 4.7542x - 1.2625
R2 = 0.9991
30.0 0.15

20.0 y = 590.13x 2 - 382.59x + 86.31 0.1

R2 = 0.9995
10.0 0.05

0.0 0
0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.60
a/w
a/w
 Recycled Concrete Aggregate

Some findings from literature

When used with a very low w/cm, RCAC
compressive strength can exceed 9000psi at 28 d
Autogenous shrinkage can be lowered by 60% by
adding saturated RCA

While there are no reports in the literature, it is likely that RCA

increases tensile creep, which would reduce propensity for
shrinkage cracking or curling

I. Maruyama, R. Sato, A trial of reducing autogenous shrinkage by recycled aggregate, in Proceedings

of self-desiccation and its importance in concrete technology, Gaithersburg, MD, June 2005.