Transcript

Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 3187–3192

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /conbui ldmat

Performance comparison of laboratory and field produced perviousconcrete mixtures

Xiang Shu ⇑, Baoshan Huang, Hao Wu, Qiao Dong, Edwin G. BurdetteDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 29 October 2010Received in revised form 18 February 2011Accepted 1 March 2011Available online 26 March 2011

Keywords:Pervious concretePerformanceEvaluationLaboratory mixesField mixes

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevierdoi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.03.002

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel. +1 865 974 2608; fax:E-mail address: [email protected] (X. Shu).

a b s t r a c t

Portland cement pervious concrete (PCPC) is an environmentally friendly paving material that has beenincreasingly used in parking lots as well as low volume and low speed pavements. Although specifica-tions are available for the mix design and construction of pervious concrete, there still remains a needfor laboratory tests to ensure the anticipated performance of laboratory designed pervious concrete. Inthis study, the performance of laboratory and field produced pervious concrete mixtures as well as fieldcores were evaluated and compared through laboratory performance tests, including air voids, perme-ability, compressive and split tensile strengths, as well as Cantabro and freeze–thaw durability tests.Two types of coarse aggregate, limestone and granite, with two gradings, No. 8 and No. 89 specified 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 freeze–thaw resistance. The comparison between labora-tory and field mixtures showed that a properly designed and laboratory verified pervious concrete mix-ture could meet the requirements of permeability, strength, and durability performance in the field.

Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

Portland cement pervious concrete (PCPC) is an environmen-tally friendly paving material. PCPC consists of portland cement,water, uniform coarse aggregate, and little or no fine aggregate.Use of uniform coarse aggregate and little or no fine aggregategives PCPC much higher porosity and permeability than conven-tional concrete, which enables quick drainage of stormwater [1–4]. 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 first 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 concretehas attracted more and more attention in concrete industry dueto the increased awareness of environmental protection. Many lab-oratory and field studies have been conducted to investigate intovarious aspects of pervious concrete [1–4,9–12]. 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] verified that PCPC can perform

Ltd.

+1 865 974 2669.

well in freeze–thaw environments based on the results from fieldvisual 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-lected aggregates, adding fine aggregates and organic intensifiers,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) significantly improvesworkability, strength, and freeze–thaw resistance of pervious con-crete while maintaining its high porosity and permeability. Huanget al. [13] improved the strength properties of pervious concretethrough polymer modification. Kevern et al. [14] identified thatcoarse aggregate type has a direct effect on the freeze–thaw dura-bility of pervious concrete and certain aggregates approved for tra-ditional 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 specifications

Mixture F1

Mixture F2

3188 X. Shu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 3187–3192

are 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 fieldproduced mixtures as well as field cores in terms of air voids, per-meability, strength, Cantabro loss, and freeze–thaw durability. Theresults showed that a properly designed and laboratory verifiedpervious concrete mixture could meet the requirements of perme-ability, strength, and durability performance in the field.

Mixture F3

Fig. 1. Pervious concrete field project.

2. Research objective and scope

The objective of the present study was to evaluate and comparethe laboratory and field produced pervious concrete mixtures aswell as field 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 freeze–thaw durability.

3. Laboratory experiment

3.1. Materials

Ordinary Type I Portland cement was used in the mixtures. Twocoarse aggregates, limestone and granite, with two gradings, No.89 and No. 8 specified in ASTM C33, were used to produce the per-vious concrete mixtures. To improve the overall performance ofPCPC, fine aggregate, latex, monofilament polypropylene fiber,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 fieldproduced pervious concrete mixtures in this study are based on alaboratory mix design presented in Table 1.

3.2. Sample preparation

The laboratory produced pervious concrete mixtures weremixed using a rotating-drum mixer. The field mixtures were col-lected in the middle of placement from a truck mixer at a readymix concrete plant (the field project was in the plant). Laboratorytest specimens were made by applying standard rodding for com-paction. The specimens were cured in a standard moisture curingchamber 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 field produced mixtures (kg/m3).

Mix. type Laboratory mixtures

Mix. no. L1 L2 L3

Cement 380 390 390Water 100 140 100Coarse aggregate GR LS LS

No. 89 No. 89 No. 891420 1440 1440

Fine aggregate 107 109 109Latex 38 – 39Fiber – – –HRWR (ml) 1150 1160 1160AEA (ml) – – –VMA (ml) 500 500 500

Note: GR – granite, LS – limestone, HRWR – high range water reducer, AEA – air-entraininASTM C33.

3.3. Air voids test

Since 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-men dimension reflect its surface texture and true volume. There-fore, a vacuum package sealing device, CoreLok (Fig. 2), commonlyused to measure the specific 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 test

Due to high porosity and permeability, Darcy’s law for laminarflow is not applicable to pervious concrete. In this study, a fallinghead permeability measurement device (Fig. 3) and a methoddeveloped by Huang et al. [15] for porous asphalt mixtures (similarto pervious concrete in permeability) was used to obtain the pseu-do-coefficient 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 tests

The 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.The split tensile strength test was conducted on150 mm � 63.5 mm cylindrical specimens with an MTS machine

Field mixtures

L4 L5 F1 F2 F3

390 390 360 360 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 500 500 500 500

g admixture, VMA – viscosity modifying admixture, No. 8 and No. 89 are specified in

Fig. 2. CoreLok for air voids test.

Fig. 3. Permeability test setup (after [13]).

X. Shu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 3187–3192 3189

in accordance with ASTM C496. The vertical load was continuouslyrecorded, and split tensile strength was computed as follows:

St ¼2Pult

ptDð1Þ

where St = split tensile strength, Pult = peak load, t = thickness ofspecimen, and D = diameter of the specimen.

3.6. Cantabro Test

The 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 ¼W1 �W2

W1� 100 ð2Þ

where Cantabro loss = weight loss in percentage, W1 = initial sam-ple weight, and W2 = final sample weight.

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. Freeze–thaw test

The freeze–thaw test was conducted to determine the freeze–thaw 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 thefreeze–thaw durability of pervious concrete. The durability factoris calculated as follows [14]:

DF ¼ PNM

ð3Þ

where P = relative dynamic modulus of elasticity or relative mass atN cycles in percent, N = number of cycles at which P reaches thespecified minimum value for discontinuing the test or the specificnumber 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 = specified number of cycles atwhich the exposure is to be terminated, 300 cycles.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Air voids

Fig. 4 shows the air voids results for the laboratory and fieldproduced 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 mixture’s porosity. For the field mixtures, withthe decrease in water content (Mixture F3 < F2 < F1), the field 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 filled 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 field cores extracted from the previous concrete pavementshowed higher air voids than the test specimens made with fieldmixtures, which could be attributed to the difference in compac-tion method and compaction effort.

4.2. Permeability

The 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 thefield mixtures in terms of permeability was F3 > F2 > F1 due totheir difference in air voids. The field cores also showed higher per-meability than the test specimens made with field mixtures.

4.3. Compressive and split tensile strengths

Figs. 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 andlatex (L3) had higher compressive and split tensile strengths thanthe mixture with granite (L1) or the mixture made without latex(L2). Two field mixtures (F1 and F2) had higher compressive and

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

L1 L2 L3

Mixture Type

Eff

ecti

ve A

ir V

oids

(%

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

F1 F2 F3Mixture Type

Eff

ecti

ve A

ir V

oids

(%

) Field Mixtures Field Cores

(a) Laboratory mixtures (b) Field mixtures

Fig. 4. Air voids results.

0

1

2

3

4

L1 L2 L3

Per

mea

bilit

y (m

m/s

)

Mixture Type

(a) Laboratory mixtures

0

1

2

3

4

F1 F2 F3

Per

mea

bilit

y (m

m/s

)

Mixture Type

Field Mixtures

Field Cores

(b) Field mixtures

Fig. 5. Permeability results.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 F1 F2 F3

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (M

Pa)

Mixture Type

Fig. 6. Compressive strength results.

0

1

2

3

4

L1 L2 L3Sp

lit T

ensi

le S

tren

gth

(MP

a)

Mixture Type

(a) Laboratory Mixtures

0

1

2

3

4

F1 F2 F3

Split

Ten

sile

Str

engt

h (M

Pa)

Mixture Type

Field Mixtures Field Cores

(b) Field Mixtures

Fig. 7. Split tensile strength results.

3190 X. Shu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 3187–3192

split tensile strengths than the laboratory mixtures. The third fieldmixture, F3, was too dry and hard to compact, and thus exhibited

lower strengths than the laboratory mixtures. As expected, thefield cores exhibited lower split tensile strength than the test spec-imens made with field mixtures due to their higher porosity.

4.4. Cantabro loss

The Cantabro loss results obtained from the Cantabro test areshown in Fig. 8. It can be seen that except for the field mixtureF3, other laboratory and field 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, field cores had higher Cantabro loss than the test speci-mens made with field mixtures due to their higher porosity andlower strength.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

F1 F2 F3 L1

Mixture Type

Can

tabr

o L

oss

(%)

Field Mixtures Field cores

Lab Mixture

Fig. 8. Cantabro loss results.

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

Freeze-Thaw Cycles

Mas

s R

emai

ning

L1

L2

L3

L4

L5

F1

F2

F3

(a) Mass loss

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300Freeze-Thaw Cycles

Rel

ativ

e D

ynam

ic M

odul

us

L1

L2

L3

L4

L5

F1

F2

F3

(b) Relative dynamic modulus

Fig. 9. Decreases in mass and dynamic modulus with freeze–thaw cycles.

Table 2Durability factors obtained from freeze–thaw 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%Limestone L3 (with latex) 26% 60% 53% 50%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%

X. Shu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 3187–3192 3191

4.5. Freeze–thaw test results

Fig. 9 shows the changes in mass and dynamic modulus of elas-ticity of the pervious concrete mixtures in the freeze–thaw test. Itcan be seen that, with the increase in the freeze–thaw 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 field 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 freeze–thaw resistance.

Table 2 presents the durability factors obtained from thefreeze–thaw 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 the

suggestions by Kevern et al. [14]. The results clearly show thatthe two field 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 freeze–thaw resistance.

5. Conclusions and summary

The 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.

2. The pervious concrete mixtures made with latex exhibitedlower porosity and permeability, higher compressive and splittensile strengths, and higher abrasion resistance than thosewithout latex. Although some laboratory mixtures with latex(L1 and L3) did not perform well in the freeze–thaw test, othermixtures with latex did show better freeze–thaw resistancethan those without latex. Generally the addition of latex couldimprove the performance of pervious concrete.

3. The field cores showed higher porosity and permeability, lowerstrength, and higher Cantabro loss (lower abrasion resistance)than the field mixture specimens made with the standard rod-ding compaction method.

4. Properly designed and laboratory verified pervious concretemixtures could meet the requirements of permeability,strength, and durability performance in the field.

5. Even for pervious concrete, the addition of air-entrainingadmixture led to significant improvement of freeze–thawresistance.

Acknowledgment

The 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 field project.

3192 X. Shu et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 3187–3192

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 Officeof Water, Washington (DC); 1999.

[6] Yang J, Jiang G. Experimental study on properties of pervious concretepavement materials. Cem Concr Res 2003;33:381–6.

[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. 171–7.

[8] Malhotra VM. No-fines concrete – its properties an applications. ACI J, Proc1976;73(11):628–44.

[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 freeze–thaw 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;2113:132–9.

[12] Delatte, N., Miller D, Mrkajic A. Field performance investigation on parking lotand roadway pavements (final 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-modified pervious concrete. Construct Build Mater2010;24(5):818–23.

[14] Kevern JT, Wang K, Schaefer VR. Effect of coarse aggregate on the freeze–thawdurability of pervious concrete. J Mater Civil Eng 2010;22(5):469–75.

[15] Huang B, Mohammad LN, Raghavendra A, Abadie C. Fundamentals ofpermeability in asphalt mixtures. J Assoc Asphalt Paving Technol1999;68:479–500.

[16] Watson DE, Moore KA, Williams K, Cooley LA. Refinement of new-generationopen-graded friction course mix design. Transport Res Rec 2003;1832:78–85.


Recommended