Performance comparison of laboratory and field produced pervious concrete mixtures

  • Published on
    26-Jun-2016

  • View
    213

  • Download
    1

Transcript

ddwille,Keywords:Pervious concretePerformanceEvaluationLaboratory mixesField mixesconng lmixcores were evaluated and compared through laboratory performance tests, including air voids, perme-te (PCconsisd littlhas attracted more and more attention in concrete industry dueto the increased awareness of environmental protection. Many lab-oratory and eld studies have been conducted to investigate intovarious aspects of pervious concrete [14,912]. Researchers atthe National Concrete Pavement Technology Center (NCPTC) devel-oped the mix proportions for pervious concrete in cold weather cli-mates [1,9,10]. Delatte et al. [11,12] veried that PCPC can performditional concrete may not be suitable for pervious concrete.Many studies revealed that unlike conventional concrete, theperformance of pervious concrete is highly dependent on both con-crete materials and construction techniques [1,11,12]. The focus ofpervious concrete technology is the balance of permeability andmechanical properties as well as durability. If the mixture is toowet and easy to compact, the voids will be clogged and the perme-ability will be compromised. However, if the mixture is too dry andhard for compaction, the pervious concrete pavement will be weakand vulnerable to various types of distress. Although specications Corresponding author. Tel. +1 865 974 2608; fax: +1 865 974 2669.Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 31873192Contents lists availabBevE-mail address: xshu@utk.edu (X. Shu).Use of uniform coarse aggregate and little or no ne aggregategives PCPC much higher porosity and permeability than conven-tional concrete, which enables quick drainage of stormwater [14]. Therefore, PCPC is a very effective stormwater management toolto reduce the volume of stormwater runoff and the concentrationof pollutants [5]. In addition, pervious concrete can also reduce ur-ban heat island effect and acoustic noise [6,7].Since it was rst introduced into the United States in the mid1970s, pervious concrete has been used in many applications forover 30 years [8]. During the last few years, pervious concretelected aggregates, adding ne aggregates and organic intensiers,and optimizing mix proportion to improve the strength and abra-sion resistance of PCPC. Kevern [3] showed that the addition ofpolymer (styrene butadiene rubber, SBR) signicantly improvesworkability, strength, and freezethaw resistance of pervious con-crete while maintaining its high porosity and permeability. Huanget al. [13] improved the strength properties of pervious concretethrough polymer modication. Kevern et al. [14] identied thatcoarse aggregate type has a direct effect on the freezethaw dura-bility of pervious concrete and certain aggregates approved for tra-1. IntroductionPortland cement pervious concretally friendly paving material. PCPCwater, uniform coarse aggregate, an0950-0618/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevierdoi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.03.002ability, compressive and split tensile strengths, as well as Cantabro and freezethaw durability tests.Two types of coarse aggregate, limestone and granite, with two gradings, No. 8 and No. 89 specied inASTM C33, were used to produce the mixtures. Latex, air-entraining admixture (AEA), and high rangewater reducer (HRWR) were also added to improve the overall performance of pervious concrete. Theresults indicated that the mixtures made with limestone and latex had lower porosity and permeability,as well as higher strength and abrasion resistance than other mixtures. Even for pervious concrete, theaddition of AEA could still help to improve the freezethaw resistance. The comparison between labora-tory and eld mixtures showed that a properly designed and laboratory veried pervious concrete mix-ture could meet the requirements of permeability, strength, and durability performance in the eld.Published by Elsevier Ltd.PC) is an environmen-ts of portland cement,e or no ne aggregate.well in freezethaw environments based on the results from eldvisual inspection and laboratory performance tests.Due to its high porosity, pervious concrete generally has signif-icantly lower strength and durability properties than conventionalconcrete. Yang and Jiang [6] suggested using appropriately-se-Available online 26 March 2011for laboratory tests to ensure the anticipated performance of laboratory designed pervious concrete. Inthis study, the performance of laboratory and eld produced pervious concrete mixtures as well as eldPerformance comparison of laboratory anconcrete mixturesXiang Shu , Baoshan Huang, Hao Wu, Qiao Dong, EDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Tennessee, Knoxva r t i c l e i n f oArticle history:Received 29 October 2010Received in revised form 18 February 2011Accepted 1 March 2011a b s t r a c tPortland cement perviousincreasingly used in parkitions are available for theConstruction andjournal homepage: www.elsLtd.eld produced perviousin G. BurdetteTN 37996, USAcrete (PCPC) is an environmentally friendly paving material that has beenots as well as low volume and low speed pavements. Although specica-design and construction of pervious concrete, there still remains a needle at ScienceDirectuilding Materialsier .com/locate /conbui ldmatare available for the mix design and construction of pervious con-crete, there still remains a need for laboratory tests to ensure theanticipated performance of laboratory designed pervious concrete.This study presents the comparison among laboratory and eldproduced mixtures as well as eld cores in terms of air voids, per-meability, strength, Cantabro loss, and freezethaw durability. Theresults showed that a properly designed and laboratory veriedpervious concrete mixture could meet the requirements of perme-ability, strength, and durability performance in the eld.2. Research objective and scopeThe objective of the present study was to evaluate and comparevious concrete mixtures. To improve the overall performance ofpaction. The specimens were cured in a standard moisture curingmen dimension reect its surface texture and true volume. There-developed by Huang et al. [15] for porous asphalt mixtures (similarThe split tensile strength test was conducted on150 mm 63.5 mm cylindrical specimens with an MTS machineField mixturesMix. no. L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 F1 F2 F3390 390 360 360 350140 100 110 95 90LS LS LS LS LSNo. 89 No. 89 No. 8 No. 8 No. 81440 1440 1440 1440 1490109 109 100 100 100 39 36 36 0.91160 1160 470 940 470390 390 690 690 700500 500 500 500 500Mixture F1 Mixture F2 Mixture F3 3188 X. Shu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 31873192Cement 380 390 390Water 100 140 100Coarse aggregate GR LS LSNo. 89 No. 89 No. 891420 1440 1440Fine aggregate 107 109 109Latex 38 39Fiber HRWR (ml) 1150 1160 1160AEA (ml) VMA (ml) 500 500 500chamber until the days of testing. The pervious concrete pavementwas compacted with manual rollers (Fig. 1). Field cores 150 mm. indiameter were extracted from the pervious concrete pavement3 weeks after construction and transported to the University ofTennessee for laboratory testing.Table 1Mix. proportions for laboratory and eld produced mixtures (kg/m3).Mix. type Laboratory mixturesPCPC, ne aggregate, latex, monolament polypropylene ber,high range water reducer (HRWR), air-entraining admixture(AEA), and viscosity-modifying admixture (VMA) were added tothe mixtures. The mix proportions for the laboratory and eldproduced pervious concrete mixtures in this study are based on alaboratory mix design presented in Table 1.3.2. Sample preparationThe laboratory produced pervious concrete mixtures weremixed using a rotating-drum mixer. The eld mixtures were col-lected in the middle of placement from a truck mixer at a readymix concrete plant (the eld project was in the plant). Laboratorytest specimens were made by applying standard rodding for com-the laboratory and eld produced pervious concrete mixtures aswell as eld cores through laboratory performance testing. The lab-oratory testing employed for the evaluation included the tests forair voids, permeability, compressive and split tensile strengths,Cantabro loss, and freezethaw durability.3. Laboratory experiment3.1. MaterialsOrdinary Type I Portland cement was used in the mixtures. Twocoarse aggregates, limestone and granite, with two gradings, No.89 and No. 8 specied in ASTM C33, were used to produce the per-Note: GR granite, LS limestone, HRWR high range water reducer, AEA air-entraininASTM C33.to pervious concrete in permeability) was used to obtain the pseu-do-coefcient of permeability of pervious concrete mixtures. De-tailed information about the test and the analysis method can befound in Huang et al. [13,15]. 150 mm 75 mm cylindrical speci-mens were used in this test.3.5. Compressive and split tensile strength testsThe compressive strength test was conducted at 28 days inaccordance with ASTM C39. An INSTRON testing machine was usedto perform this test on 100 mm 200 mm cylindrical specimens.fore, a vacuum package sealing device, CoreLok (Fig. 2), commonlyused to measure the specic gravity and air void content for as-phalt mixtures, was used in this study to obtain the air voids ofpervious concrete specimens. This test was conducted by followingthe ASTM D7063 procedures.3.4. Permeability testDue to high porosity and permeability, Darcys law for laminarow is not applicable to pervious concrete. In this study, a fallinghead permeability measurement device (Fig. 3) and a method3.3. Air voids testSince pervious concrete has a relatively high porosity, it is notsuitable to use the submerged weight measurement to obtain itsbulk volume. Neither does geometrical measurement of a speci-Fig. 1. Pervious concrete eld project.g admixture, VMA viscosity modifying admixture, No. 8 and No. 89 are specied inildingFig. 2. CoreLok for air voids test.X. Shu et al. / Construction and Buin accordance with ASTM C496. The vertical load was continuouslyrecorded, and split tensile strength was computed as follows:St 2PultptD 1where St = split tensile strength, Pult = peak load, t = thickness ofspecimen, and D = diameter of the specimen.3.6. Cantabro TestThe Cantabro test was initially used for testing the abrasionresistance of asphalt open-graded friction course (OGFC) a por-ous asphalt mixture [16]. This test is conducted with the Los Ange-les (LA) abrasion machine (ASTM C 131) without the steel ballcharges. The weight loss after the test (called the Cantabro loss)is calculated in percentage as follows:Cantabro Loss W1 W2W1 100 2where Cantabro loss = weight loss in percentage, W1 = initial sam-ple weight, and W2 = nal sample weight.Fig. 3. Permeability test setup (after [13]).In this study, the Cantabro test was used to characterize theabrasion resistance of pervious concrete specimens.150 mm 101.6 mm cylindrical specimens were used in the test.3.7. Freezethaw testThe freezethaw test was conducted to determine the freezethaw resistance of pervious concrete mixtures using procedure Aof ASTM C666, in which specimens were subjected to continuousfreezing and thawing in the saturated condition. Relative dynamicmodulus (RDM) and mass loss were used to characterize thefreezethaw durability of pervious concrete. The durability factoris calculated as follows [14]:DF PNM3where P = relative dynamic modulus of elasticity or relative mass atN cycles in percent, N = number of cycles at which P reaches thespecied minimum value for discontinuing the test or the specicnumber of cycles at which the exposure is to be terminated, which-ever is less. The criteria for P were 60% for RDM or 3%, 5%, or 15%when calculated for mass, and M = specied number of cycles atwhich the exposure is to be terminated, 300 cycles.4. Results and discussion4.1. Air voidsFig. 4 shows the air voids results for the laboratory and eldproduced pervious concrete mixtures. For the laboratory mixtures,the mixture made with limestone and latex (L3) exhibited lowerair voids than that with granite (L1). The air void content of Mix-ture L3 (made with latex) was also lower than that without latex(L2), which means that incorporation of latex to pervious concretewould lower the mixtures porosity. For the eld mixtures, withthe decrease in water content (Mixture F3 < F2 < F1), the eld mix-tures showed an increase in air voids (Mixture F3 > F2 > F1). This isdue to the fact that Mixture F1 was too wet and its air voids wereeither lled with or blocked by cement paste/mortar, whereas Mix-ture F3 was too dry and hard to compact. It can be seen from Fig. 4that the eld cores extracted from the previous concrete pavementshowed higher air voids than the test specimens made with eldmixtures, which could be attributed to the difference in compac-tion method and compaction effort.4.2. PermeabilityThe permeability results of the pervious concrete mixtures areshown in Fig. 5. It is evident that the permeability results wereconsistent with the air voids results because air voids and perme-ability are highly correlated. The laboratory mixture made withlimestone and latex (L3) showed lower permeability than that withgranite (L1) or the mixture without latex (L2). The ranking of theeld mixtures in terms of permeability was F3 > F2 > F1 due totheir difference in air voids. The eld cores also showed higher per-meability than the test specimens made with eld mixtures.4.3. Compressive and split tensile strengthsFigs. 6 and 7 compare the compressive and split tensilestrengths of laboratory and plant produced pervious concrete mix-tures. The mixtures showed very similar trends in compressive andsplit tensile strength. The laboratory mixture with limestone andMaterials 25 (2011) 31873192 3189latex (L3) had higher compressive and split tensile strengths thanthe mixture with granite (L1) or the mixture made without latex(L2). Two eld mixtures (F1 and F2) had higher compressive andldin3190 X. Shu et al. / Construction and Buisplit tensile strengths than the laboratory mixtures. The third eldmixture, F3, was too dry and hard to compact, and thus exhibited051015202530L1 L2 L3Mixture TypeEffective Air Voids (%)051015202530F1 F2 F3Mixture TypeEffective Air Voids (%)(a) Laboratory mixturesFig. 4. Air void0 1 2 3 4 L1 L2 L3Permeability (mm/s)Mixture Type(a) Laboratory mixtures0 1 2 3 4 F1 F2 F3Permeability (mm/s)Mixture TypeField MixturesField Cores(b) Field mixtures Fig. 5. Permeability results.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 F1 F2 F3Compressive Strength (MPa)Mixture TypeFig. 6. Compressive strength results.(b) Field mixtures s results.Field Mixtures Field Coresg Materials 25 (2011) 31873192lower strengths than the laboratory mixtures. As expected, theeld cores exhibited lower split tensile strength than the test spec-imens made with eld mixtures due to their higher porosity.4.4. Cantabro lossThe Cantabro loss results obtained from the Cantabro test areshown in Fig. 8. It can be seen that except for the eld mixtureF3, other laboratory and eld mixtures had a Cantabro loss of lessthan 20% (most less than 15%), which means that they had a goodabrasion resistance. The comparison between the Cantabro loss re-sults with those of air voids and strength shows that mixtures withhigher air voids and lower strength exhibited higher Cantabro lossthan the mixtures with lower porosity and higher strength. As ex-pected, eld cores had higher Cantabro loss than the test speci-mens made with eld mixtures due to their higher porosity andlower strength.01234L1 L2 L3Split Tensile Strength (MPa)Mixture Type(a) Laboratory Mixtures 01234F1 F2 F3Split Tensile Strength (MPa)Mixture TypeField Mixtures Field Cores(b) Field Mixtures Fig. 7. Split tensile strength results.Limestone L3 (with latex) 26% 60% 53% 50%ilding051015202530F1 F2 F3 L1Mixture TypeCantabro Loss (%)Field Mixtures Field coresLab MixtureFig. 8. Cantabro loss results.X. Shu et al. / Construction and Bu4.5. Freezethaw test resultsFig. 9 shows the changes in mass and dynamic modulus of elas-ticity of the pervious concrete mixtures in the freezethaw test. Itcan be seen that, with the increase in the freezethaw cycles, boththe mass and the dynamic modulus of the specimens decreased.Compared to dynamic modulus, the mass loss seemed to start la-ter. However, once started, the mass loss was much faster thanthe reduction in dynamic modulus. Fig. 9 shows that the eld mix-tures F1 and F2 and the laboratory mixtures with air-entrainingadmixture (AEA) (L4 and L5) performed better than the other mix-tures in terms of freezethaw resistance.Table 2 presents the durability factors obtained from thefreezethaw test. The durability factors were calculated based onthe results at 300 cycles. The criteria for test cutoff were takenas 60% for RDM or 3%, 5%, or 15% for mass loss following the2. The pervious concrete mixtures made with latex exhibitedlower porosity and permeability, higher compressive and split60%70%80%90%100%0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300Freeze-Thaw CyclesMass RemainingL1L2L3L4L5F1F2F3(a) Mass loss 0%20%40%60%80%100%0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300Freeze-Thaw CyclesRelative Dynamic ModulusL1L2L3L4L5F1F2F3(b) Relative dynamic modulus Fig. 9. Decreases in mass and dynamic modulus with freezethaw cycles.tensile strengths, and higher abrasion resistance than thosewithout latex. Although some laboratory mixtures with latex(L1 and L3) did not perform well in the freezethaw test, othermixtures with latex did show better freezethaw resistancethan those without latex. Generally the addition of latex couldimprove the performance of pervious concrete.3. The eld cores showed higher porosity and permeability, lowerstrength, and higher Cantabro loss (lower abrasion resistance)than the eld mixture specimens made with the standard rod-suggestions by Kevern et al. [14]. The results clearly show thatthe two eld mixtures (F1 and F2) and two laboratory mixtureswith AEA (L4 and L5) performed much better than the other mix-tures. F1 performed well because of its low air voids and perme-ability. However, its very low porosity made it unsuitable for useas pervious concrete. Mixtures L4 and L5 performed well becausethey contained air-entraining admixture (AEA), which indicatedthat even for pervious concrete, the addition of AEA could help toimprove its freezethaw resistance.5. Conclusions and summaryThe following conclusions and summary are derived from thepresent study:1. The pervious concrete mixtures made with limestone exhibitedlower porosity and permeability, as well as higher compressiveand split tensile strengths than the mixtures made with granite.Limestone L4 (with AEA) 77% 98% 98% 98%Limestone L5 (with AEA and latex) 39% 77% 63% 59%Field mixturesBatch 1 F1 (with latex) 45% 98% 98% 98%Batch 2 F2 (with latex) 48% 96% 96% 92%Batch 3 F3 25% 51% 48% 43%Table 2Durability factors obtained from freezethaw test.Mixture Mix. designation DF (RDM) DF (% mass remaining)60% 85% 95% 97%Laboratory mixturesGranite L1 (with latex) 25% 51% 46% 44%Limestone L2 (control) 24% 55% 56% 48%Materials 25 (2011) 31873192 3191ding compaction method.4. Properly designed and laboratory veried pervious concretemixtures could meet the requirements of permeability,strength, and durability performance in the eld.5. Even for pervious concrete, the addition of air-entrainingadmixture led to signicant improvement of freezethawresistance.AcknowledgmentThe authors would like to thank the Georgia Department ofTransportation (GDOT) for funding this research project. Theauthors would also like to acknowledge the Portland Cement Asso-ciation (PCA) for providing a graduate fellowship to augment thefunding for the development of abrasion resistance testing proce-dures for pervious concrete. Thanks also go to the Tennessee Con-crete Association (TCA) and the Transit-Mix Concrete Company forhelp with the eld project.References[1] Schaefer VR, Wang K, Suleiman MT, Kevern JT. Mix design development forpervious concrete in cold weather climates. Final report, Ames (IA): NationalConcrete Pavement Technology Center, Iowa State University; 2006.[2] Tennis PD, Leming ML, Akers DJ. Pervious concrete pavements. EB302 Portlandcement association skokie illinois and national ready mixed concreteassociation. Maryland: Silver Spring; 2004.[3] Kevern JT. Advancement of pervious concrete durability. Ph.D. Dissertation,Ames (IA): Iowa State University; 2008.[4] Montes F. Pervious concrete: characterization of fundamental properties andsimulation of microstructure. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of South Carolina;2006.[5] Storm water technology fact sheet. Porous pavement. EPA 832-F-99-023 Ofceof Water, Washington (DC); 1999.[6] Yang J, Jiang G. Experimental study on properties of pervious concretepavement materials. Cem Concr Res 2003;33:3816.[7] Kajio S, Tanaka S, Tomita R, NodaE, Hashimoto S. Properties of porous concretewith high strength. In: Proceedings 8th international symposium on concreteroads, Lisbon; 1998. p. 1717.[8] Malhotra VM. No-nes concrete its properties an applications. ACI J, Proc1976;73(11):62844.[9] Wang K, Schaefer VR, Kevern JT, Suleiman MT. Development of mix proportionfor functional and durable pervious concrete. In: Proceedings, 2006 NRMCAconcrete technology forum focus on pervious concrete (CD-ROM), Nashville,Tenn.; 2006.[10] Kevern JT. Mix design determination for freezethaw resistant portlandcement pervious concrete. Master thesis, Ames (IA): Iowa State University;2006.[11] Delatte N, Mrkajic A, Miller DI. Field and laboratory evaluation of perviousconcrete pavements. Transport Res Rec 2009;2113:1329.[12] Delatte, N., Miller D, Mrkajic A. Field performance investigation on parking lotand roadway pavements (nal report). Silver Spring (MD): RMC Research &Education Foundation; 2007.[13] Huang B, Wu H, Shu X, Burdette EG. Laboratory evaluation of permeability andstrength of polymer-modied pervious concrete. Construct Build Mater2010;24(5):81823.[14] Kevern JT, Wang K, Schaefer VR. Effect of coarse aggregate on the freezethawdurability of pervious concrete. J Mater Civil Eng 2010;22(5):46975.[15] Huang B, Mohammad LN, Raghavendra A, Abadie C. Fundamentals ofpermeability in asphalt mixtures. J Assoc Asphalt Paving Technol1999;68:479500.[16] Watson DE, Moore KA, Williams K, Cooley LA. Renement of new-generationopen-graded friction course mix design. Transport Res Rec 2003;1832:7885.3192 X. Shu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 31873192Performance comparison of laboratory and field produced pervious concrete mixturesIntroductionResearch objective and scopeLaboratory experimentMaterialsSample preparationAir voids testPermeability testCompressive and split tensile strength testsCantabro TestFreezethaw testResults and discussionAir voidsPermeabilityCompressive and split tensile strengthsCantabro lossFreezethaw test resultsConclusions and summaryAcknowledgmentReferences

Recommended

View more >