SELF CONSOLIDATING CONCRETE

Effect of Mix Design on Design and Performance of Precast/Prestressed Girders

Rigoberto Burgueo, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Structural Engineering

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Michigan State University

BACKGROUND & MOTIVATION

Self-Consolidating Concrete (SCC): a specially proportioned concrete that can flow easily into forms and around steel reinforcement without segregation. The benefits of SCC in reduced labor needs, increased rate of production and safety, and lower noise levels have generated great interest from the precast concrete industry. Considerable development in SCC technology has been made through the past decades particularly in Japan, Canada, and Europe, and its applications have become wide spread.

SCC FRESH PROPERTY BEHAVIOR

BACKGROUND & MOTIVATION

Self-Consolidating Concrete (SCC): a specially proportioned concrete that can flow easily into forms and around steel reinforcement without segregation. The benefits of SCC in reduced labor needs, increased rate of production and safety, and lower noise levels have generated great interest from the precast concrete industry. Considerable development in SCC technology has been made through the past decades particularly in Japan, Canada, and Europe, and its applications have become wide spread.

SCC BENEFITS

BACKGROUND & MOTIVATION

Use of SCC in the US has been limited because of concerns about design and construction issues that are perceived to influence the structural integrity. In spite of the rapid developments in SCC technology, most of the work has focused on mix design development, rheology characterization, mechanical properties, and in-situ verification. Very limited information exists on issues related to structural design and performance.

SCC PROPORTIONING & BEHAVIOR

Fluidity/Deformability A. Increase paste deformability * use of HRWR * balanced w/c ratio B. Reduce inter-particle friction * low coarse aggregate volume * use cont. graded powder Easy Flow/Low Blockage A. Enhance cohesiveness * low w/c ratio * use of VMA B. Compatible flow space and aggregate size * low coarse aggregate volume * low max. size aggregate Homogeneity/Stability A. Reduce solids separation * limit aggregate content * reduce max. size aggregate * increase cohesion & viscosity - low w/c ratio - use of VMA B. Minimize bleeding * low w/c ratio * use of high-area powder * increase VMA

Fluidity/Stability Trade-off Deformability

Low Viscosity, High Fluidity

High Viscosity, Low Fluidity

Viscosity

SCC MIX DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

No commonly accepted procedure to proportion SCC. Methods are bounded by two approaches: 1) High w/c ratios (e.g., 0.45) and use of HRWR and VMA. 2) Lower w/c ratios (e.g. 0.33), high use of HRWR and no VMA Approach: Develop characteristic bounding SCC mix designs.
Mix Design SCC-1 SCC-2 SCC-3 NCC w/c 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.40 HRWR + + + + VMA +/ + CAC less S/Pt more EA + + + +

more

less

MSU SCC RESEARCH Part 1

PCI Daniel P. Jenny Research Fellowship on Structural Performance of PC/PS Girder Bridges using SCC Objective: To investigate the transfer and flexural bond length performance of prestressing strands in pc/ps bridge girders built using SCC to provide guidance on the construction and design of these elements with SCC.

MIX DESIGNS PCI Project

Type Constituents (lbs) Cement Sand Gravel Water Air w/c Ratio Admixtures (oz/cwt) Air Entraining HRWR VMA Set Retardant MB-AETM 90 Glenium 3200 HES Rheomac VMA 358 DELVO Stabilizer 0.5 6.29 0 6.14 0.21 8.49 3.94 0 0.5 7 1 6.69 9.08 8 9 6 1 2 0 6 (design) Type-III 2 NS 6 AA 700 1519 1380 245 6% 0.35 700 1426 1380 280 6% 0.4 700 1426 1380 280 6% 0.4 700 1275 1435 315 6% 0.45 700 1216 1580 280 6% 0.4 SCC1 SCC2A SCC2B SCC3 NCCB

FRESH PROPERTIES PCI Project

Inverted Slump Flow and VSI Test

Slump Spread Flow SCC1 SCC2a SCC2b SCC3

*

Visual Stability Index 0 0.5 0* 1

27" 25" 24.5" 27"

Concrete had very low flowability

FRESH PROPERTIES PCI Project

J-Ring Test

J-Ring Value SCC1 SCC2a SCC2b SCC3 1.59 23.81 na 41.28

FRESH PROPERTIES PCI Project

L-Box Test

Blocking Ratio SCC1 SCC2a SCC2b SCC3

*

t1, t2 (sec.) 1, 2 1, 2 na 2, 9*

0.80 0.86 0.76 0.69*

Test was done too late

CONSTITUTIVE PROPERTIES fc
10000 66

Compressive Strength (MPa)

9500 9000 8500 8000 7500 7000 6500 NCCB SCC1 SCC2A SCC2B SCC3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 6000 5500 5000

60 57 54 51 48 45 42 39 36 33 30

4500 140

Age Of Concrete (days)

CONSTITUTIVE PROPERTIES fct

4.75 700

Split Tensile Strength (MPa)

650

4.25 600 4.00 3.75 3.50 3.25 3.00 NCCB SCC1 SCC2A SCC2B SCC3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 550

500

450

400 140

Age Of Concrete (days)

Split Tensile Strength (psi)

4.50

Compressive Strength (psi)

63

CONSTITUTIVE PROPERTIES Ec
4.6e+6 30 4.4e+6 4.2e+6

Elastic Modulus (GPa)

28

4.0e+6 3.8e+6 3.6e+6

26

24 3.4e+6 22 SCC1 SCC2a SCC2b SCC3 NCCb 3.2e+6 3.0e+6 2.8e+6 2.6e+6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

20

18

Concrete Age (days)

TRANSFER AND DEVELOPMENT LENGTH OF PRESTRESSING STRANDS

2 beams per concrete mix 4 flexural bond tests per mix. 2 1/2-in. diameter strands - Stressed at ~ 0.75fu 38 ft in length.

Cross Section:

PRODUCTION PLAN

3 SCC mix designs that bound mix current design approaches 1 normally consolidated concrete (NCC) mix as a control mix SCC mix performance was to be evaluated

Elastic Modulus (psi)

Casting Bed and Stressing Operation

Casting Operation with SCC Mix

Formwork Removal and Instrumentation

Prestress Release Operation

TRANSFER LENGTH EVALUATION

Strand Pull-In

Concrete Strain Profile

Strand Draw-in Measurements

4.0 3.5 0.16 0.14

Strand Draw - in (mm)

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 NCCB SCC1 SCC2A SCC2B SCC3

0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00

MIX TYPE

Strand Draw - in (in.)

3.0

0.12

Average Strain Profile for SCC1 Beams

Distance Along Beam (in.)
0 5e-4 Lt = 719 mm (28.3 in.) 4e-4 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Concrete Strain

3e-4

95% AMS

2e-4

1e-4 SCC1 0 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500

Distance Along Beam (mm)

Transfer Length Evaluation PCI Phase 1

1100 1000 900 45 Concrete Strains Strand Draw-in 40 ACI / AASHTO

Transfer length (mm)

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

NCCB

SCC1

SCC2A SCC2B

SCC3

MIX TYPE

Transfer Length Evaluation PCI Phase 2

1100 1000 900 45 Concrete Strains Strand Draw-in ACI / AASHTO 40

Transfer length (mm)

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

NCC

SCC1

SCC2

SCC3

MIX TYPE

Transfer length (in.)

35

Transfer length (in.)

35

Transfer Length Evaluation Summary

1100 1000 900
45 Phase1 Phase2 40

Transfer length (mm)

800 Average ACI Lt = 760.98 mm (29.96 in.) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100
0

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

NCC

SCC1

SCC2

SCC3

MIX TYPE

DEVELOPMENT LENGTH EVALUATION

Development Length Test Setup

Transfer length (in.)

35

10

Failure Modes

Flexure Failure

Bond-Slip/Shear Failure

Typical Response with Flexure/Bond Failure

0 1 2 Displacement at the section (in.) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 90 80 70 Slip Onset Slip @ Mn = 3.500 mm (0.137 in.) 60 50 40 30 20 SCC3-2B Lda = 103.0 in. 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 Displacement at the section (mm) 250 275 10 0 Moment (kip-ft)

120 Mn = 116.87 kN-m (86.20 k-ft) 110 100 Moment (KN-m) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Development Length Test Results Phase 1

ACI - 318

M test M n ACI
SCC1 SCC2A SCC2B SCC3 NCCB 1.06 1.11 1.01 1.09 1.04

Ld test Ld ACI
1.07 1.09 1.21 1.79 1.06

Ld expt . Ld ACI
1.03 1.04 1.17 1.42 0.97

11

Development Length Test Results Phase 2

ACI - 318

M test M n ACI
SCC1 SCC2 SCC3 NCC 1.06 1.02 1.05 1.11

Ld test Ld ACI
1.10 1.04 0.93 1.06

Ld expt . Ld ACI
1.05 1.03 0.84 0.96

CONCLUSIONS Part 1: PCI Project

The presented studies are serving as an evaluation of SCC mix designs on the structural performance of precast SCC elements. SCC mix designs with moderate w/c ratios and moderate use of HRWR and VMA behave closer to NCC mixes without any chemical admixtures. Transfer lengths determined by draw-in and concrete strain measurements indicate that the ACI equation applies to SCC. Results from flexural tests indicate that development lengths for SCC mixes were slightly longer than code predicted values.

CONCLUSIONS Part 1: PCI Project

The much longer development lengths found for SCC during the PCI Phase-1 project were verified to be due to poor strand quality. Development length tests using a pre-qualified strand, known to have very good properties, indicated that SCC mix designs do affect the flexural bond mechanism of prestressing strands but in a slight manner. A more definite position by the research team is under consideration. SCC mix proportioning seems to have different effects on the associated bond mechanisms controlling transfer and flexural bond length.

12

MSU SCC RESEARCH Part 2

MDOT/FHWA IBRC Project: Experimental Evaluation and Field-Monitoring of Bridge Precast/Prestressed Box-Girders made from Self-Compacting-Concrete Objective: To implement SCC in the precast/prestressed box beams of a demonstration bridge and to evaluate their short- and longterm performance against the behavior of beams from normally consolidated concrete.

M-50/US-127 Bridge Over the Grand River

Elevation View
52'

Plan View
Beam 1

Beam 2 Bridge Deck Beam 3 49' Beam 4 5 @ 8'-8"

Beam 5

Beam 6

APPROACH
Consider 3 SCC mix designs that bound current design approaches. Consider 1 normally consolidated concrete (NCC) mix as a control mix. The short-term flexure and shear performance of the SCC beams should be verified to be equal or better than that of the NCC beams through full-scale testing. The long-term performance of the SCC beams in comparison to the NCC beams to be continuously monitored for a year (or more?).

13

BEAM PRODUCTION
3 NCC and 3 SCC (one for each mix design) beams for demonstration bridge 2 NCC and 6 SCC (two of each mix design) for experimental evaluation 3 reserve NCC beams for bridge placement in case of unsatisfactory SCC performance Total: 17 Beams, 8 NCC and 9 SCC

MIX DESIGNS IBRC Project

Type Constituents (lbs) Cement Sand Gravel Water Air w/c Ratio S/A Ratio (%) Admixtures (oz/cwt) Air Entraining HRWR VMA (design) Type-III 2 NS 6 AA SCC1 700 1,591 1,350 256 6% 0.37 54.1 MBAE90 Glenium 3400 Rheomac VMA 1 15 1 SCC2 700 1,513 1,350 285 6% 0.41 52.9 1 12 2 SCC3 700 1,320 1,450 320 6% 0.46 47.7 1 10.7 6 NCC 700 1,277 1,600 280 6% 0.40 44.4 1 8 0

MIX DESIGN EVALUATION

Strand Bond Evaluation

Mock-up Production

Fresh Property Evaluation

14

BEAM CROSS SECTION

36" 5"

5 #4 Bars spaced at 6"

4.5" 27"

4.5" 16 Prestressing Strands 0.6" diameter

BEAM PRODUCTION

NCC Beam Production Cast in two operations

Increased labor and time

SCC Beam Production Cast in one operation

Reduced labor and time

EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION

15

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Experimental evaluation was conducted at MSUs Civil Infrastructure Laboratory Two test beams were cast for each concrete
One was to be evaluated for flexural response
Four total tests

One was to be evaluated for shear response

Four total tests

FLEXURAL EVALUATION

FLEXURAL TEST SETUP

Reaction Frame

Actuator

Test Beam

Reaction Floor 21 8 50 52

Support Block

16

FLEXURAL FAILURE MODE

FLEXURE TEST RESULTS

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Design-Full* Design-Reduced* *Nominal-AASHTO 17th Ed. NCC SCC 1 SCC 2 SCC 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Load (kip)

0 0 1 2 3

Displacement (in.)

FLEXURE TEST RESULTS

1800 1600 1400

Moment (kip-ft)

1200 1000 800 600 400

Design-Full* Design-Reduced* th *Nominal-AASHTO 17 Ed. NCC SCC 1 SCC 2 SCC 3 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004

200 0 0.0000

M
0.0001

Curvature (1/in.)

17

ACHIEVED FLEXURAL CAPACITIES

Maximum Total Moment (kip-ft) NCC SCC1 SCC2 SCC3 1,649 1,628 1,593 1,590

Design Moment [AASHTO] * (kip-ft) 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499

17th Ed.

Actual to Design Ratio 1.10 1.09 1.06 1.06

* According to AASHTO Standard Specifications

SHEAR EVALUATION

SHEAR TEST SETUP

Reaction Frame

Actuator

Test Beam

Shear Deformation Panel

Support Block 22-Lv Lv 8 52

Reaction Floor

NCC: Lv = 11 ft SCC: Lv = 9 ft

18

SHEAR FAILURE MODE

SHEAR TEST RESULTS

200 180 160 140 For all SCC Beams: L v= 9 ft For NCC Beam : L v= 11 ft

Load (kip)

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 P Lv P AASHTO LRFD 2 nd Ed. Design Nominal Capacity [L v=11 ft] AASHTO LRFD 2 nd Ed. Design Nominal Capacity [L v=9 ft] NCC SCC 1 SCC 2 th Note: AASHTO 17 Ed.:176 kip SCC 3 Design Nominal Capacity Shear Section 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Displacement (in.)

SHEAR TEST RESULTS

1300 1200 1100 1000 For all SCC Beams: Lv=9 ft For NCC Beam: Lv=11 ft

Moment (kip-ft)

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0.00000 0.00005 0.00010 0.00015 0.00020
.89 M M P Lv P Shear Section

AASHTO LRFD 2nd Ed. Design Nominal Capacity [Lv=11 ft] AASHTO LRFD 2nd Ed. Design Nominal Capacity [Lv=9 ft] NCC SCC 1 SCC 2 SCC 3

Note: Design Nominal Capacity: 1546 kip-ft [AASTHO 17th Ed.]

Curvature (1/in.)

19

SHEAR TEST RESULTS

180 160 140

Shear Force (kips)

120 100 80 60
P P Shear Section

NCC - AASHTO-LRFD 2 [f'c=5500psi, Lv=11ft]

nd

Ed.

SCC - AASHTO-LRFD 2nd Ed. [f'c=5500psi, Lv=9ft]

Lv

40 20 0 0 250

NCC Exp_avg SCC1 Exp_avg SCC2 Exp_avg SCC3 Exp_avg

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

2000

Average Shear Strain (microstrain)

ACHIEVED SHEAR CAPACITIES

Maximum Total Shear (kip) NCC SCC1 SCC2 SCC3 128 159 146 140 Design Shear [AASHTO] * (kip) 116 130 130 130

Actual to Design Ratio 1.11 1.22 1.12 1.08

* According to AASHTO-LRFD Simplified Section Analysis Method

BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

Beams placed: 9/15/05 Open to traffic: Late October

20

FIELD MONITORING
Instruments per Girder:
NCC NCC NCC - Instrumented SCC 1 - Instrumented SCC 2 - Instrumented SCC 3 - Instrumented System deployed: 12/20/05

8 Vibrating Wire Strain Gages 8 Thermocouples

CONCLUSIONS Part 2: IBRC Project

All beams exceeded design capacities and were implemented in the demonstration bridge. The capacities of the NCC beams were slightly higher then those of the SCC beams. The different SCC mix designs were seen to have an effect on flexural displacements as well as in the shear post-cracking behavior. The field-monitoring program is underway and an automated data reduction program with potential web broadcast is under development.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful for the financial and in-kind support provided by: PCI through a 2003-2004 D.P. Jenny Research Fellowship. MDOT and FHWA through a 2005 IBRC Project. The Premarc Corp. in-kind labor and materials Degussa Admixtures Inc. technical support and materials The CEE Department at Michigan State University

21

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors also gratefully acknowledge the collaborating effort and many fruitful discussions with: Mr. Armand Atienza (Formerly with Degussa) Mr. Doug Burnett (Formerly with Degussa) Mr. Tom Grumbine (Premarc) Mr. Don Logan (Stresscon) Mr. Horacio Lopez (Premarc) Dr. Charles Nmai (Degussa) Mr. Fernando Roldan (Premarc) Mr. Roger Till (MDOT) Mr. Chad Woodward (Degussa)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The experimental work for the presented projects was conducted at MSUs Civil Infrastructure Laboratory. The work could not have been possible with the aide and assistance of its staff and student researchers, including: Mr. David Bendert Mr. James Brenton Mr. Steven Franckowiak Mr. Mahmoodul Haq Mr. Siavosh Ravanbakhsh

22