Concrete (PCC) Mixture Designs

for OHare Modernization Program

Principal Investigators
Prof. Jeff Roesler
Prof. David Lange
PROJECT GOAL
Investigate cost-effective concrete properties and pavement
design features required to achieve long-term rigid
pavement performance at Chicago OHare International.
Acknowledgements
Principal Investigators
Prof. Jeff Roesler
Prof. David Lange

Research Students
Cristian Gaedicke
Victor Cervantes
Former OMP Research Students
Sal Villalobos CTL, Inc. (Chicago area)
Civil engineer

Robert Rodden American Concrete
Pavement Association (Chicago area)
Technical director

Zach Grasley Texas A&M
Materials professor
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
FY2005-06 Accomplishments
Tech Notes (TN) -
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
www.cee.uiuc.edu/research/ceat
FY2006 Accomplishments
Tech Notes (TN) -
TN21: An Overview of Ultra-Thin Whitetopping
Technology
TN23: Effect of Large Maximum Size Coarse Aggregate
on Strength, Fracture and Shrinkage Properties of
Concrete
TN24: Concrete Saw-Cut Timing Model

TNXX: Recycled Concrete Aggregate Concrete (80%)
TNYY: Functionally Layered Concrete Pavements (70%)
TNZZ: Properties of concrete containing GGBFS
TNAA: Effects of Concrete Materials and Geometry on
Slab Curling (40%)
www.cee.uiuc.edu/research/ceat
Presentation Overview
2006 Topics TN & Brown Bag
Large-sized coarse aggregate mixtures
Slab Curling theoretical analysis
Saw-cut timing model
Recycled Concrete Aggregate
P-501 Accomplishments
P-501 Remaining Items
Field Demo Project
Future Work

Phase II Mix Summary


Mixture ID 688.38ST 688.38 571.44 555.44
f
sp28
(psi) 570 454 524 490
MOR
28
(psi) 802 639 794 663
E
28
(ksi) 3,752 3,438 3,958 4,209

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/yd
3
) 1850 1842 1938 1942
Fine Aggregate (lb/yd
3
) 1103 1083 1140 1142
Water (lb/yd
3
) 262 261 251 244
Cement (lb/yd
3
) 588 588 571 455
Fly ash (lb/yd
3
) 100 100 0 100
Air (oz/yd
3
) 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/ft
3
) 145.1 141.8 146.2 150.2

Larger-size coarse aggregate
Effect of larger-size
coarse aggregate on
strength
Drying Shrinkage Phase II




Total Shrinkage vs. Age
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Concrete Age (days)
S
h
r
i
n
k
a
g
e

(
m
i
c
r
o
s
t
r
a
i
n
)
.
.
688.38 st
688.38
571.44
555.44
\
Mixture ID
688.38 st 688.38 571.44 555.44
c
sh3
(microstrain) 48 118 139 52
c
sh7
(microstrain) 193 233 250 158
c
sh14
(microstrain) 292 338 320 273
c
sh28
(microstrain) 417 405 380 335
Effect of larger-size
coarse aggregate on
shrinkage
Fracture Energy Results-Phase II

Age = 28-days


Load vs. CMOD curves for Wedge Splitting Samples
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
CMOD(mm)
F
v

(
N
)
688.38st
688.38
555.44
Mixture ID
688.38 st 688.38 571.44 555.44
G
F
(Nm) 156 166 N/A 161
Effect of larger-size
coarse aggregate on fracture
properties
P-501 Accomplishments
No fly ash replacement ratio
ASTM C157 <0.045% at 28-days*
MSA 1.5 inch*
Design strength 650 psi and specified
strength =620 psi
Min. cement content =535 lb/yd
3
Min. w/cm 0.4 & max 0.45
P-501 Remaining Issues
Nominal vs. Maximum Size Aggregate
Combined Gradation

ASTM C1157 blended cements
Performance spec

Air content
5.5% for 1.5inch MSA

Slag
ASTM C 1157

Combined Gradation

Sieve # Sieve size (mm) 1" Aggregate 1.5" Aggregate FA 1" + FA 1.5" + FA
1.5" 40 100 100 100 100 100
1" 25 100 41 100 100 63
3/4" 20 67 8 100 79 42
1/2" 12.5 12 1 100 45 38
3/8" 10 3 0 100 39 37
#4 5 0 0 99 37 37
#8 2.5 0 0 91 34 34
#16 1.25 0 0 76 28 28
#30 0.630 0 0 53 20 20
#50 0.315 0 0 16 6 6
#100 0.160 0 0 1 0 0
WF = Combined aggregate finer than No. 8 (%): 34 34
CF = coarse agg retained 3/8" / all retained No.8 (%) 92.0 94.8
OMP Combined gradations Original aggregates
Saw-Cut Timing and Depth






Process
FRACTURE
PROPERTIES

Tensile strength of the slab at 12 hours
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
a
o
/d
N
o
m
i n
a
l
s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
M
P
a
)
688.38
688.38ST
Wedge Split Test FEM Model
Saw Cut Depth
Model
Concrete Mix
Aggregate size
Cementitious content
Crack Propagates
Summary of Notch Depth
Requirements
AGE(hrs)
Slab depth (m) 0.19 0.38 0.19 0.38 0.19 0.38 0.19 0.38
555.44 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.11 0.06 0.47 0.21
555.44st 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.46 0.22
688.38 0.05 0.02 0.16 0.06 0.38 0.14 0.71 0.49
688.38st 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.05 0.21 0.09 0.56 0.37
12
Saw Cut Depth (a
0
/d)
6 8 10

Saw Cut Depth vs Age
(Slab depth: 190 mm)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
6 8 10 12
Age (hrs)
S
a
w

C
u
t

D
e
p
t
h
.
555.44
555.44st
688.38
688.38st
Saw Cut Depth vs Age
(Slab depth: 380 mm)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
6 8 10 12
Age (hrs)
S
a
w

C
u
t

D
e
p
t
h
.
555.44
555.44st
688.38
688.38st
Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA)
Objectives
Determine the fracture properties of concrete
virgin and recycled coarse aggregate
w/ and w/o structural fibers





Effects of concrete drying shrinkage with
recycled coarse aggregate
Results Virgin vs RCA
CMOD vs Load Curve Comparison
No FRC
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
CMOD (mm)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Virgin Agg.
Recycled Coarse Agg
Similar peak loads

Virgin GF is 1.6 times
larger than RCA GF
E KIc GF
(GPa) (MPa m1/2) Nm
Beam 1 27.19 1.06 0.0182 63.16
Beam 2 24.74 1.18 0.0195 82.81
Ave. 25.96 1.12 0.0189 72.98
Beam 1 30.12 1.13 0.0196 40.01
Beam 2 25.84 1.06 0.0186 49.35
Ave. 27.98 1.09 0.0191 44.68
CTOD
c
(mm)
Virgin
Agg.
Recycled
Coarse
Agg.
Results Virgin FRC vs RCA FRC
Similar peak loads

Similar softening curves

Similar GF
CMOD vs Load Curve Comparison
FRC
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
CMOD (mm)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Virgin Agg.
Recycled Coarse Agg
E KIc GF
(GPa) (MPa m1/2) Nm
Beam 1 26.81 1.35 0.0262 254.43
Beam 2 25.25 1.24 0.0292 217.48
Ave. 26.03 1.30 0.0277 235.95
Beam 1 28.36 1.12 0.0193 278.48
Beam 2 27.96 1.13 0.0192 164.62
Ave. 28.16 1.12 0.0192 221.55
CTOD
c
(mm)
Virgin
Agg.
FRC
RCA
FRC
RCA Shrinkage
TOTAL SHRINKAGE
75x75x285 mm specimen
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Concrete Age (days)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

D
r
y

S
h
r
i
n
k
a
g
e

(
m
i
c
r
o
s
t
r
a
i
n
)
Virgin FRC
Virgin
RCA-FRC
RCA
Concrete Slab Behavior
Curling stresses
temperature
moisture

Joint Opening
Load transfer
Dowel vs. no dowel
Hygro-thermal Strain (1)
Quantify the drying shrinkage due to RH change
Micro-mechanical model: modified Mackenzies
formula

phase solid and
body porous for the modulus bulk : ,
98 . 0
1 75 . 0 1 factor, saturation :
pressure fluid pore :
where
1 1
3
3
s
s
HT
K K
RH
S S
P
K K
PS
(
(

|
.
|

\
|
=
(

= c
Hygro-thermal Strain (2)
Kelvin-Laplace equation

water of me molar volu : '
degree; Kelvin in re temperatu :
constant; gas universal :
where
'
) RH ln(
u
u
T
R
RT
p =
Slab-base friction











f
o
L: joint spacing
E
L
f
4
2

=

o
Expansion caused by friction (after K.P. George)
Joint opening (o)


( )
taken. "-" otherwise,
taken; " " n, contractio i.e. , 0 when

+ < +
+ + =
o c c
o c c c o
HT T
f
curl
HT T
L
Field Validation
Field data: three concrete slabs were cast on
06/22/06 at ATREL
Slab size: 15x12x10, BAM
Temp., RH measured @ surface, 1,3,5,7
and 9 at 15-min. interval
Two LVDTs installed in each joint to measure
joint opening

Joint Opening Measurement

Two week joint opening

-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
6/22 6/24 6/26 6/28 6/30 7/2 7/4 7/6 7/8
DATE
J
O
I
N
T
-
O
P
E
N
I
N
G

(
i
n
)
A
B
C
D
A
C
B D
Two month joint opening

-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
6/12 6/22 7/2 7/12 7/22 8/1 8/11 8/21 8/31 9/10 9/20
DATE
J
O
I
N
T
-
O
P
E
N
I
N
G

(
i
n
)
A
B
C
D
A C
B D
Concrete Free Shrinkage

SHRINKAGE 688.38 ST MIX
0
200
400
600
800
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Age (days)
S
h
r
i
n
k
a
g
e

(
m
m
/
m
m
)

.
Total shrinkage - Lab Mix
Total shrinkage - Field Mix
Autogrenous shrinkage - Field Mix

Material inputs
Setting temp. T= 50C (122F)
o=5.75 x 10
-6
/

F (10.35 x 10
-6
/

C)
K=2.12 x 10
6
psi
K
s
=3.77 x 10
6
psi
E=4.03 x 10
6
psi
Unit weight =149 pcf
Friction coeff. = 2.5
Data set: 0:08a.m. on 07/01/06 12:38p.m. on
07/13/06 at 15-min. interval
Predicted joint opening(1)
Predicted joint opening(2)
Future Work

Concrete Pavement / Material
Interaction
Hygro-thermal effects on slab behavior
Curling & joint opening (slab sizes)
Dowel
Construction practices (curing, temp, mix components)
Early & long age

Material effects (e.g.)
Combined gradation*
Slag
High early strength/stiffness
FRC
PCC slab
Wind
Solar radiation
Convection
Reflected radiation
BAM
ASB
Subgrade
Conduction
Conduction
Surface Energy Balance
N-layer Heat Transfer Model
Governing PDE

(J/kg/C) capacity heat specific : c
) (kg/m density concrete :
hr) / (J/m hydration of heat : Q
hr) / (m y diffusivit thermal :
where
1
p
3
2
h
2
2
2
2
2

o
i
p
h
i i i
i
i
c
Q
z
T
r
T
r r
T
t
T
+
|
.
|

\
|
c
c
+
c
c
+
c
c
=
c
c
Layer 1
Layer 2


Layer n
1 1 1 1
, , , T h o
2 2 2 2
, , , T h o
n n n
T , ,o
Z
r
B.C.s
QUESTIONS
www.cee.uiuc.edu\research\ceat


Thanks!
Curling Questions
How does shrinkage effect slab size?
What are the combined effect of
moisture/temperature profile?
What is the role concrete creep?
How do other concrete materials behave
FRC & SRA?
Slab Curling
Effects of materials
and slab geometry on
moisture and
temperature curling
HT CR
c c = 5 . 0

CR HT T tot
c c c c + + =
( )
) 1 ( 2
) , ( ) , ( ) , ( ) ( ) (
) 1 ( 2
) ( ) ( ) (
) , (
v
z t z t z t t E t C
v
z t E t C
z t
CR HT T

+ +
=

=
c c c c
o

)) ( ln(
98 . 0
) (
1 75 . 0 1
3
1
3
1 ) (
) (
3
0
z RH
z RH
k k v
z RT
z
w
Total
HT
(
(

(
(

|
.
|

\
|

(

= c

dz z RH
z RH
k k v
z RT
h
z z
h
h w
Total
HT NL L HT
}

+
(
(

(
(

|
.
|

\
|

(

=
2 /
2 /
3
0
)) ( ln(
98 . 0
) (
1 75 . 0 1
3
1
3
1 ) ( 1
) ( ) ( c c
c
c
o
o
o
o
Time
Stress

P
c
Vapor
Diffusion
after Grasley (2006) & Rodden (2006)
Field vs Lab


50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Elapsed Time (days)
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

R
H

(
%
)
Surface - 1
Surface - 2
1/2" - 1
1/2" - 2
1"
5"
7"
11" - 1
11" -2
14" - 1
14" - 2

50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Elapsed Time (days)
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l

R
H

(
%
)
0"
1/2"
1"
3"
7"
11"
14"
Field
Lab

-7.5
-6
-4.5
-3
-1.5
0
1.5
3
4.5
6
7.5
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
RH (%)
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

S
l
a
b

(
i
n
)
Actual RH
Second Order
Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
GGBFS
Introduction
By product of the steel industry

Produced in blast furnaces

Highly cementitious

Hydrates similarly to Portland cement
Production
Iron blast furnace
slag is quenched
it is then ground to a fine
power
Pros and Cons
Improves workability
Lower water demand
Higher paste volume
Higher strength potential
Using 120 grade
Longer setting time
Decreased permeability
Performs well in freeze
thaw tests
Reduces the effects of ASR
Reduced heat of hydration*

More susceptible to drying
shrinkage

Slower strength gain*


Pros
Cons
Slag Activity Index
Higher grade GGBFS can be used in larger
percentages
Improves early and ultimate performance
ASTM C989