center for by-products utilization cbu reports/rep-378.pdf · dr. tarun r. naik is director of the...

Center for

By-Products

Utilization

DURABILITY OF CAST-CONCRETE PRODUCTS

UTILIZING RECYCLED MATERIAL SYSTEMS

By Tarun R. Naik, Rudolph N. Kraus, Yoon-Moon Chun,

Bruce R. Ramme, and Shiw S. Singh

Report No. CBU-2000-07

January 2000

Rep 378

A CBU Report

Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics College of

Engineering and Applied Science

THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONISN-MILWAUKEE

Strength and Durability of Cast-Concrete Products Utilizing Recycled Materials

Tarun R. Naik, Rudolph N. Kraus, Yoon-Moon Chun, and Bruce R. Ramme

Synopsis: The major aim of this investigation was to develop technology for manufacturing of cast-concrete products using fly ash, bottom ash, and used foundry sand. A total of 18 mixture proportions were developed for bricks, blocks, and paving stones using these by-products. A reference mixture without any by-product materials for each type of cast-concrete masonry product was also proportioned. For bricks and blocks, 25% and 35% of portland cement was replaced with fly ash. Bottom ash and used foundry sand were used as a partial replacement of cement at replacement levels of 25 and 35% of regular sand. Paving stones contained fly ash as a replacement of cement at the rate of replacement of 15% and 25%. All cast-concrete products were tested for compressive strength, density, absorption, freezing and thawing resistance, drying shrinkage, and abrasion resistance. Analysis of test data revealed that bricks with 25% replacement of cement with fly ash are suitable for use in both cold and warm climates. However, other brick mixtures were appropriate for building interior walls in cold regions and both interior and exterior walls in warm regions. None of paving stone mixtures including control mixtures strictly conform to the ASTM requirements. Masonry blocks with up to 25% replacement of regular sand with either bottom ash or used foundry sand could be used for building exterior walls in cold regions. The rest of the concrete mixtures for blocks could be used for building interior walls in cold regions and both interior and exterior walls in warm regions. Keywords: Blocks, bricks, cast-concrete, masonry products, paving stones.

Dr. Tarun R. Naik is Director of the UWM Center for By-Products Utilization and Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, WI. He is an active member of ACI and ASCE. He is a member of ACI Committee 232, "Fly Ash and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete", Committee 228, "Nondestructive Testing of Concrete", Committee 214, "Evaluation of Results of Strength Tests of Concrete", and Committee 123, "Research". He is also chairman the ASCE technical committee "Emerging Materials". ACI member Rudolph N. Kraus is Assistant Director, UWM Center for By-Products Utilization, Milwaukee, WI. He has been involved with numerous projects on the use of by-product materials including utilization of used foundry sand and fly ash in CLSM (Controlled Low Strength Materials), evaluation and development of CLSM utilization lightweight aggregate, and use of by-product materials in the production of dry-cast concrete products. Yoon-Moon Chun completed his M.S. degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in 1999. Currently, he is pursuing his Ph.D. degree in Civil Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. His research interests include by-product utilization in cement-based materials. Bruce W. Ramme is the Manager of Combustion By-Products Utilization for Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Milwaukee, WI and a member of ACI. He is currently Chairman of ACI Committee 229 on Controlled Low Strength Materials; and also serves on Committee 231C on By-Product Lightweight Aggregates, Committee 213 on Lightweight Concrete, and Committee 232 on Fly Ash in Concrete. Shiw S. Singh is Research Associate, UWM Center for By-Products Utilization, Milwaukee, WI. He completed his Ph.D. from University of Wisconsin-Madison in biomechanics. His research interests include solidmechanics, strength and durability of composite materials including cement-based materials, and remedial investigation of sites contaminated with hazardous materials.

INTRODUCTION

Fly ash and bottom ash are generated from the combustion of coal in steam generating

power plants. The annual production of fly ash and bottom ash in the United States is

estimated to be about 20 and 60 million short tons in 1997, respectively. Of these, only

32% of the total materials produced were utilized in various applications. Therefore,

large volumes of these by-products are still landfilled. Numerous applications of fly ash

including for concrete, waste stabilization, structural fills, road base/subbase, mining

application, controlled low strength materials (CLSM), etc. are well known and well

established. The use of fly ash in concrete products accounted for about 49% of the

total fly ash used in 1997. This translates to 16% of the total fly ash produced in the

United States in 1997 [1]. Beneficial applications of bottom ash include structural fills,

road base/subbase, snow and ice control, concrete, waste stabilization, mining

applications, blasting grit/roofing granules, and mineral filler [2]. The use of bottom ash

in concrete accounts for about 12% of total bottom ash generated in 1997. This

translates to only 3.6% of the total bottom ash produced in the United States in 1997

[1].

A basic foundry process produces castings by pouring molten metal into sand molds.

The molds consist usually of molding sand and core sand. After hardening, the

castings are removed in a shakeout process, cleaned, inspected, and shipped for

delivery. The foundry by-product materials are generated because the raw materials

used in mold making loose their required characteristics for manufacturing processes

after a few times of reuse. Foundries are typically classified as ferrous or non-ferrous

foundries. Ferrous foundries include gray iron, ductile iron, steel foundries, etc. Non-

ferrous foundries include aluminum, brass/bronze foundries, etc. [3]. Over 92%

(873,000 tons) of Wisconsin foundry by-products were landfilled in 1996 [4].

Currently, large volumes of fly ash, bottom ash, and used foundry sand are disposed of

in landfills. Because of the increasing disposal cost and the difficulty in locating new

landfill sites and the potential liability associated with landfills, beneficial utilization

options for these industrial by-products is an important issue for the industry and the

public [2, 3, 5, 6, 7 ].

The primary reasons for low utilization rate for the above by-products may be quality of

the by-product materials, regulatory restrictions, and unavailability of sufficiently

developed high-volume use technologies. Large-scale use of these by-products in

construction materials, especially in cement-based materials, will consume most of the

by-products generated in the USA. This project was primarily undertaken to develop

high-volume use technologies for fly ash, bottom ash, and used foundry sands in

manufacture of cast-concrete bricks, blocks, and paving stones.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

In this work, the effects of inclusion of fly ash (FA), bottom ash (BA), and used foundry

sand (UFS) on strength and durability-related properties of masonry products such

bricks, blocks, and paving stones were investigated. The data obtained in this

investigation will be used to establish mixture proportions and production technology for

masonry products incorporating substantial amounts of fly ash, bottom ash, and used

foundry for construction applications.

TESTING PROGRAM

MATERIALS

The following ingredients were used in the manufacture of concrete masonry products.

Portland Cement

Type I portland cement from one source was used in this work. The cement met the

standard requirements for ASTM Type I cement. However, it showed a little higher SO3

content than the standard chemical requirements of ASTM.

Fly Ash

ASTM Class F fly ash from the Wisconsin Electric Power Company’s Oak Creek Power

Plant (OCPP) was used in this research. The fly ash met both the physical and the

chemical requirements of ASTM for Class F fly ash.

Regular Sand

Regular concrete sand was used as a fine aggregate. The sand met all ASTM

requirements for fine aggregate for concrete.

Used Foundry Sand

Used foundry sand (ferrous green sand) supplied by a foundry in Neenah, WI was used

in this investigation. The UFS was used as a partial replacement of regular sand. The

physical properties of the UFS are presented in Table 5 and sieve analysis results are

presented in Table 6. The used green sand exhibited about 14% lower unit weight,

20% lower SSD absorption, 60% lower fineness modulus, and over five times larger

percentage of materials finer than 75-m relative to regular concrete sand. The used

green sand did not meet the grading and materials finer than 75-m requirements of

ASTM C33 for fine aggregates for use in concrete. Clay lumps and friable particles test

and soundness test for UFS results showed 9% clay lumps and friable particles and

39% weight loss due to soundness test.

Bottom Ash

Bottom ash was obtained from the Oak Creek Power Plant of the Wisconsin Electric

Power Company. It was sieved over a 9.5 mm sieve and only the portions finer than

9.5 mm was used in this project. The bottom ash was used as a partial replacement of

regular fine aggregate. The bottom ash exhibited a slightly higher percentage of clay

lumps and friable particles than the requirement of ASTM. It met all the other

requirements of ASTM.

Coarse Aggregate

Crushed limestone chips with a 9.5-mm maximum size were used as coarse aggregate.

The physical properties of the coarse aggregates are presented in Table 10. The

coarse aggregates did not meet the materials finer than 75-m requirement of ASTM

for coarse aggregates. Sieve analysis results for the coarse aggregate are presented in

Table 11. The coarse aggregates used did not meet all the gradation requirements.

Mixture Proportions and Manufacturing of Masonry Products

Mixture Proportions

A total of 18 masonry mixtures, six each for bricks, paving stones, and blocks were

proportioned. For brick and block mixtures, fly ash was used as a replacement of

cement at levels of 25% and 35% of cement by mass. For paving stone mixtures, fly

ash was used as a replacement of cement at levels 15% and 25% by mass. Also, 25%

and 35% of regular sand by mass was replaced with either bottom ash or used foundry

sand. Bottom ash and used foundry sand were not used simultaneously in the same

mixture. Crushed limestone chips with 9.5-mm maximum size were used as a coarse

aggregate. Cementitious materials (cement + fly ash) content in paving stone mixtures

were almost two times that of brick or block mixtures. Control mixtures for bricks,

paving stones, and blocks without fly ash, bottom ash, or used foundry sand were also

proportioned. Mixture proportions for bricks, paving stones, and blocks are presented

in Tables 1 through 3, respectively.

Mixing Procedure

Regular fine aggregate (sand) and coarse aggregate (crushed limestone chips), and

bottom ash or used foundry sand were blended in a standard, fixed-drum, mixer, for

three minutes. Then, cement and fly ash were added. After mixing for three more

minutes, a gentle stream of water was added. Mixing and adding water were repeated

until desired moisture content for these mixtures was achieved. Then the mixture was

discharged into a hopper, which lifted it up and dumped it into the top of a masonry

product manufacturing machine at the Best Block Company’s plant in Racine, WI.

Test Specimens

From each brick or paving stone mixture, four representative specimens were taken

and weighed for determining approximate density of the freshly cast concrete bricks or

paving stones. From each block mixture, one representative specimen was taken for

measuring density. After the casting, the products were transported via conveyor belts

and steams cured for 16 to 20 hours at 52C and at atmospheric pressure. Several

days later, these masonry products were shipped to the laboratories of the University of

Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM). Initially, they were stored outdoors. Bricks and paving

stones were stored outdoors for almost two months (June and July). Blocks were

stored outdoors for about two weeks (in July). Then, bricks, paving stones, and blocks

were moved into the UWM Concrete Laboratory for indoor storage at ambient

temperature of 22 2 C and relative humidity of 50 10 %, until the time of test.

Typical dimensions (width, length, and height) of bricks and paving stones were 92-mm

x 194-mm x 57- mm. Each specimen of bricks and paving stones had a “frog”, that is a

groove, on its bottom-bearing surface. For this project, dry-cast paving stones were

produced using brick molds. The blocks were three web hollow blocks with typical

dimensions of 194-mm x 397-mm x 192-mm.

Testing of Specimens

Tests for compressive strength, water absorption, and moisture content of bricks,

paving stones, and blocks were performed in accordance with ASTM C 140. Three to

six compression specimens and three absorption and moisture content specimens were

tested for each brick or paving stone mixture at 5, 28, 56, 91, and 288 days. Three

compression specimens and three absorption and moisture content specimens were

tested for each block mixture at 7, 14, 28, and 91 days. Testing for freezing and

thawing resistance of bricks, paving stones, and blocks was carried out in accordance

with ASTM C 1262 using five specimens for each masonry block mixture. Drying

shrinkage of bricks and blocks was measured in accordance with ASTM C 426 using

three specimens for each mixture. Test for abrasion resistance of paving stones was

carried out in accordance with ASTM C 418 using three specimens for each paving

mixture.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Compressive Strength of Bricks

The compressive strength for DR1 (control), DR2 (25% FA), DR3 (25% FA and BA),

DR4 (35% FA and BA), DR5 (25% FA and UFS), and DR6 (35% FA and UFS) bricks

were 25.2, 23.2, 16.3, 12.9, 21.9, and 20.8 MPa, respectively, at the age of five days.

At this age, DR1 (control) bricks exceeded the minimum compressive strength

requirement for Grade N (Table 15) bricks (24 MPa) by about 5%. At five days, DR2,

DR5, and DR6 dry-cast bricks exceeded the strength requirement for Grade S bricks

(17 MPa) by about 34%, 27%, and 21%, respectively. The respective compressive

strength values for brick mixtures DR1, DR2, DR3, DR4, DR5, and DR6 increased to

31.2, 32.1, 18.9, 21.6, 27.8, and 27.2 MPa at 28 days; 34, 36.5, 22.1, 24.1, 34.1, and

33.1 MPa, at 56 days; 30.3, 38.1, 20.8, 24.3, 34.2, and 29.3 MPa at 91 days; and 41.8,

41, 20.5, 30, 41.6, and 37 MPa at 288 days of age.

The above results indicate that the early-age strength of brick mixtures containing fly

ash was lower compared to the reference mixture. The rate of strength gain for the fly

ash mixture became greater than that for the reference mixture at later ages. Thus the

difference in strength of the fly ash mixtures and the control mixture reduced with

increasing age. A lower strength values were obtained for DR3 and DR4 mixtures

incorporating both fly ash and bottom ash. This was attributed to the dilution effects of

fly ash, and lower relative strength of bottom ash particles compared to concrete sand

particles used in these concrete mixtures. Except mixtures DR3 and DR4, all mixtures

met the ASTM strength requirement for grade N bricks. DR3 and DR4 met the ASTM

strength requirement for Grade S bricks. At later ages relative performance of 35% fly

ash and bottom ash mixture (DR4) was better than 25% fly ash and bottom ash mixture

(DR3). This is attributed to higher contribution of the pozzolanic effect of the class F fly

ash in this project.

Density and Absorption

The average density values for DR1 (control), DR2 (25% FA), DR3 (25% FA and BA),

DR4 (35% FA and BA), DR5 (25% FA and UFS), and DR6 (35% FA and UFS) bricks

were 2098, 2098, 1922, 1906, 2114, and 2114 kg/m3, respectively. DR2 (25% FA)

bricks showed the same density as DR1 (control) bricks. DR3 (25% FA and bottom

ash) and DR4 (35% FA and bottom ash) bricks showed about 8% and 9%, respectively,

lower density than DR1 (control) bricks. This is attributed to the partial replacement of

regular sand with lighter bottom ash. DR5 (25% FA and UFS) and DR6 (35% FA and

UFS) bricks showed density equivalent to DR1 (control) bricks.

DR3 (25% FA and BA) and DR4 (35% FA and BA) bricks were classified as medium

weight bricks per ASTM C 55. All other bricks (DR1, DR2, DR5, and DR6) were

classified as normal weight bricks. The average absorption values for DR1, DR2, DR3,

DR4, DR5, and DR6 bricks were 169.8, 150.6, 193.8, 184.2, 149, and 149 kg/m3,

respectively. DR2 (25% FA) bricks showed about 11% lower absorption than DR1

(control) bricks. DR3 (25% FA and BA) and DR4 (35% FA and BA) bricks showed

about 14% and 8%, respectively, higher absorption than DR1 (control) bricks. This is

believed to be primarily due to more porous microstructure of bottom ash versus normal

sand that it reflected in these mixtures. DR1 (control) met the maximum absorption

requirement for Grade S bricks (208 kg/ m3) for normal weight bricks. All other bricks

(DR2, DR3, DR4, DR5, and DR6) met the absorption requirement for Grade N bricks

(maximum 160 kg/m3 for normal weight bricks and 208 kg/m

3 for medium weight

bricks). The above results indicate that the lowest absorption was obtained for DR2,

DR5, and DR6. This was primarily attributed to improved microstructure of these bricks

resulting from pozzolanic reactions of fly ash.

Freezing and Thawing Resistance of Bricks

DR2 bricks with 25% replacement of cement with FA showed the lowest freezing and

thawing weight loss. In this work a weight loss of 0.20% was taken as the critical value.

The critical value of weight loss (0.20%) was reached by DR1, DR2, DR3, DR4, DR5,

and DR6 bricks at about 92, 150, 30, 18, 40, and 12 cycles of freezing and thawing,

respectively.

On the basis of number of freezing and thawing cycles before reaching the critical value

of weight loss for DR1 (control) bricks, DR2 (25% FA) bricks had about 63% longer

freezing and thawing life than DR1 (control) bricks. DR3 (25% FA and BA) and DR4

(35% FA and BA) bricks had about 67% and 80%, respectively, shorter freezing and

thawing life than DR1 (control) bricks. DR5 (25% FA and UFS) and DR6 (35% FA and

UFS) bricks had about 57% and 87%, respectively, shorter freezing and thawing life

than DR1 (control) bricks. The above results suggest that the freezing and thawing

resistance of dry-cast bricks substantially decreased with the increase in percent

replacement of regular fine aggregate with either BA or UFS. This was attributed to

decrease in the strength of bricks when these by-products were added to the brick

mixtures.

Drying Shrinkage of Bricks

All bricks (DR1 through DR6) met the maximum drying shrinkage requirement of ASTM

for Type II nonmoisture-controlled brick units (less than 0.065%) per ASTM C55. This

means that all of the bricks could also be used as Type I moisture-controlled brick units

if they are dried to meet the maximum moisture content requirements for Type I

moisture-controlled brick units. The drying shrinkage values for DR1 (control), DR2,

DR3, DR4, DR5, and DR6 bricks were approximately 0.023%, 0.040%, 0.031%,

0.034%, 0.041%, and 0.036%, respectively. These values were 35%, 62%, 48%, 52%,

63%, and 55%, respectively, of the maximum drying shrinkage requirement for Type II

nonmoisture-controlled brick units (less than 0.065%).

PAVING STONES

Compressive Strength of Paving Stones

The respective compressive strength values for mixtures DS1 (control), DS2 (15% FA),

DS3 (15% FA and 25% BA), DS4 (25% FA and 35% BA), DS5 (15% FA and 25%

UFS), DS6 (25% FA and 35% UFS) were 38.3, 53.8, 26.5, 15.7, 30.1, and 24 MPa at

the age of five days. These values are about 69%, 98%, 48%, 28%, 55%, and 44%,

respectively, of the minimum compressive strength requirement of ASTM for paving

stones (55 MPa). The respective compressive strength values for DS1 (control), DS2

(15%FA), DS3 (15% FA and 25% BA), DS4 (25% FA and 35% BA), DS5 (15%FA and

25% UFS), DS6 (25% FA and 35% UFS) were increased to 33.8, 47.4, 35, 22, 29.2,

and 26.2 MPa at 28 days, 48.5, 58.3, 39.6, 22.7, 41.9, and 32.6 MPa at 56 days; 54.1,

4.5, 41.7, 25.4, 33.7, and 35.5 MPa at 91 days; 43.6, 48.3, 46.2, 31.5, 42.3, and 45.9

MPa at 288 days of age.

The rate of compressive strength development for paving stone mixtures followed the

same general trend as described previously for brick mixtures. The peak compressive

strength was observed for paving stone mixture DS2 containing 15% fly ash at all test

ages. The above results revealed that none of the paving stone mixtures met the

ASTM strength (55 MPa) requirement. This was partly related to the type of mold used;

a brick mold was used due to non-availability of molds for paving stones at the

manufacturing facility. Since DS2 exhibited strength equivalent to the control mixtures,

it can also be recommended for commercial manufacture of paving stone for typical

construction work.

Density and Absorption of Paving Stones

The average density values for paving stones were 2098 kg/m3

for DS1 (control), 2195

kg/m3

for DS2 (15% FA), 2002 kg/m3 for DS3 (15% FA and 25% BA), 1874 kg/m

3 for

DS4 (25% FA and 35% BA), 2082 kg/m3 for DS5 (15% FA and 25% UFS), and 2066

kg/m3 for DS6 (25% FA and 35% UFS). The density of DS2 (15% FA) paving stones

was about 5% higher than that of DS1 (control) paving stones. The density values for

DS3 (15% FA and 25% BA) and DS4 (25% FA and 35% BA) paving stones were about

5% and 11%, respectively, lower than that of DS1 (control). The density values for DS5

(15% FA and 25% UFS) and DS6 (25% FA and 35% UFS) paving stones were

equivalent to the value shown by control mixture DS1.

The average absorption values for DS1 (control), DS2 (15% FA), DS3 (15% FA and

25% BA), DS4 (25% FA and 35% BA), DS5 (15% FA and 25% UFS), and DS6 (25%

FA and 35% UFS) paving stones were 131.4, 96.1, 137.8, 176.2, 129.8, 131.4 kg/m3,

respectively. These values are about 64%, 20%, 72%, 120%, 62%, and 64%,

respectively, higher than the maximum absorption requirement for paving stones (80

kg/m3). The absorption values for DS2 (15% FA), DS3 (15% FA and 25% BA), DS4

(25% FA and 35% BA), DS5 (15% FA and 25% UFS), and DS6 (25% FA and 35%

UFS) paving stones were about 27% lower, 5% and 34% higher, 1% lower, and 0%

lower than that of DS1 (control) paving stones.

Freezing and Thawing Resistance of Paving Stones

DS2 (15% FA) paving stone mixture showed the highest resistance to freezing and

thawing among all mixtures tested . The freezing and thawing weight loss of DS1

(control) paving stones was equivalent to DS2 paving stones up to about 250 cycles of

freezing and thawing. However, DS1 (control) paving stones ruptured after 250 cycles

of freezing and thawing.

DS1 (control), DS2, DS3, DS4, DS5, and DS6 paving stones reached the critical value

of weight loss (0.20%) at about 190, 200, 150, 120, 95, and 45 cycles of freezing and

thawing, respectively. Thus, the paving stones showed much longer freezing and

thawing life than that achieved by the bricks discussed previously. This was probably

due to the higher cementitious materials (cement + FA) contents of paving stones which

resulted in higher values of compressive strength compared to bricks.

Abrasion Resistance of Paving Stones

Abrasion coefficient represent the volume loss from sand blasted area of paving stones.

The abrasion coefficient values for DS1 (control), DS2 (15% FA and 25% UFS), DS3

(15% FA and 25% BA), DS4 (25% FA and 55% BA), DS5 (15% FA and 25% UFS), and

DS6 (25% FA and 35% FA) paving stones were 4.75, 3.68, 5.72, 7.32, 6.83, and 8.53

mm3/mm

2, respectively. The abrasion coefficient values for DS2 (15% FA), DS3 (15%

FA and 25% BA), DS4 (25% FA and 35% BA), DS5 (15% FA and 25% UFS), and DS6

(25% FA and 35% UFS) paving stones were about 22% lower, and 20%, 54%, 44%,

and 80% higher than that of DS1 (control) paving stones. The highest abrasion

resistance of DS2 (15% FA) was attributed to its highest compressive strength amongst

all paving stones mixtures tested.

BLOCKS

Compressive Strength of Blocks

The compressive strength values for DL1 (control), DL2 (25% FA), DL3 (25% FA), DL4

(35% FA and BA), DL5 (25% FA and UFS), and DL6 (35% FA and UFS) dry-cast

blocks were 19.2, 20.6, 14.8, 9.7, 18.2, and 15.4 MPa, respectively at the age of 7

days. These values are about 46%, 57%, 13% higher, 26% lower, and 39% and 18%

higher than the minimum compressive strength requirement for load-bearing concrete

blocks (13 MPa). Therefore, except DL4 (35% FA and BA), all block mixtures

exceeded the minimum compressive strength requirement at the age of seven days.

The respective compressive strength values for DL1 (control), DL2 (25% FA), DL3

(25% FA), DL4 (35% FA and BA), DL5 (25% FA and UFS), and DL6 (35% FA and UFS)

dry-cast blocks increased to 21.7, 19.9, 20.4, 12.5, 18.9, and 20.2 MPa at 14 days;

22.7, 25.4, 21.4, 15.3, 24.4, and 22.3 MPa at 28 days; 23.1, 29.2, 22.5, 16.1, 28.1, and

25.4 MPa at 91 days of the age.

Density, and Absorption of Blocks

The average density values for DL1 (control), DL2 (25% FA), DL3 (25% FA and BA),

DL4 (35% FA and BA), DL5 (25% FA and UFS), and DL6 (35% FA and UFS) dry-cast

blocks were 2163, 2211, 2034, 1938, 2227, and 2227 kg/m3, respectively. The density

values for DL2 (25% FA), DL3 (25% FA and BA), DL4 (35% FA and BA), DL5 (25% FA

and UFS), and DL6 (35% FA and UFS) blocks were about 2% higher, 6% and 10%

lower, and 3% and 3% higher compared to DL1 (control). DL4 (35% FA and BA) blocks

were classified as medium weight blocks. All the other blocks were classified as normal

weight blocks.

The average absorption values for DL1 (control), DL2 (25% FA), DL3 (25% FA and BA),

DL4 (35% FA and BA), DL5 (25% FA and UFS), and DL6 (35% FA and UFS) blocks

were 134.6, 123.3, 152.2, 171.4, 123.3, and 129.8 kg/m3, respectively. These values

are 35%, 41%, 27%, 29%, 41%, and 38% lower than the applicable maximum ASTM

water absorption requirement. The respective absorption values for DL2 (25% FA),

DL3 (25% FA and BA), DL4 (35% FA and BA), DL5 (25% FA and UFS), and DL6 (35%

FA and UFS) blocks were about 8% lower, 13% and 27% higher, and 8% and 4% lower

relative to DL1 (control) blocks.

Freezing and Thawing Resistance of Blocks

The freezing and thawing resistance results exhibited the lowest weight loss for the

blocks made with DL2 (25% FA). DL1 (control), DL3 (25% FA and BA), and DL5 (25%

FA and UFS) blocks showed comparable freezing and thawing weight loss with each

other up to about 80 cycles of freezing and thawing. However, from about 100 cycles,

DL5 blocks began to show larger weight loss than DL3 or DL1 (control) blocks. From

about 160 cycles, DL3 blocks began to show larger weight loss than DL1 (control)

blocks. DL6 (35% FA and UFS) and DL4 (35% FA and BA) blocks showed very large

freezing and thawing weight loss from the early freezing and thawing cycles. DL6 (35%

FA and UFS) blocks showed smaller weight loss than DL4 (35% FA and BA) blocks.

DL1 (control), DL3, DL4, DL5, and DL6 blocks reached the critical value of weight loss

(1.1%) at about 250, 200, 10, 170, and 30 cycles, respectively. Based on the plot

shown in Fig. 8, DL2 (25% FA) blocks would have reached the critical value of weight

loss at about 350 cycles of freezing and thawing if the freezing and thawing tests were

continued.

Therefore, based on the critical value of weight loss, DL2 (25% FA), DL3 (25% FA and

BA), DL4 (35% FA and BA), DL5 (25% FA and UFS), and DL6 (35% FA and UFS)

blocks had about 40% longer, and 20%, 96%, 32%, and 88% shorter freezing and

thawing life compared to DL1 (control) blocks. The blocks with up to 25% replacement

of regular sand with either BA or UFS exhibited freezing and thawing resistance

comparable to DL1 (control) blocks.

Drying Shrinkage of Blocks

All blocks met the maximum drying shrinkage requirement of ASTM for Type II

nonmoisture-controlled block units (less than 0.065%). This means that all of the

blocks could also be used as Type I moisture-controlled block units if they were dried to

meet the moisture content requirement for Type I moisture-controlled block units. The

drying shrinkage values for DL1 (control), DL2 (25% FA), DL3 (25% FA and BA), DL4

(35% FA and BA), DL5 (25% FA and UFS), and DL6 (35% FA and UFS) were 0.023%,

0.020%, 0.031%, 0.028%, 0.038%, and 0.040%, respectively. DL3 (25% FA and BA)

and DL4 (35% FA and BA) blocks exhibited about the same drying shrinkage. The

respective drying shrinkage values for DL2 (25% FA), DL3 (25% FA and BA), DL4 (35%

FA and BA), DL5 (25% FA and UFS), and DL6 (35% FA and UFS) blocks were about

13% lower, and 35%, 22%, 65%, and 74% higher than that of DL1 (control) blocks.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This investigation was undertaken to develop mixture proportion for manufacturing of

cast-concrete products using fly ash, bottom ash, and used foundry sand. Details of

test results of this investigation are reported elsewhere [8]. ASTM Class F Fly Ash (FA)

was used as a partial replacement of portland cement at replacement levels of 15%,

25%, and 35%. UFS (used foundry sand, specifically ferrous green sand) and BA

(bottom ash) were used as partial replacements of regular fine aggregates (sand) at

replacement levels of 25% and 35%. Six brick mixtures were produced: DR1 (control),

DR2 (25% FA), DR3 (25% FA and 25% BA), DR4 (35% FA and 35% BA), DR5 (25%

FA and 25% UFS), and DR6 (35% FA and 35% UFS). For these masonry products, BA

and UFS were not used simultaneously in the same mixture. Six paving stone mixtures

were produced: DS1 (control), DS2 (15% FA), DS3 (15% FA and 25% BA), DS4 (25%

FA and 35% BA), DS5 (15% FA and 25% UFS), and DS6 (25% FA and 35% UFS).

The cement content of paving stones was about two times the cement content of bricks

due to higher compressive strength and durability requirements. Paving stones were

produced using brick molds. Six block mixtures were produced: DL1 (control), DL2

(25% FA), DL3 (25% FA and 25% BA), DL4 (35% FA and 35% BA), DL5 (25% FA and

25% UFS), and DL6 (35% FA and 35% UFS). The mixture proportions for blocks were

similar to those for bricks.

Based on the data presented, the following conclusions can be drawn.

1. In general concrete masonry mixtures containing Class F fly ash showed lower

early-age compressive strength compared to reference masonry mixture for each

masonry product. The compressive strength difference between fly ash containing

mixtures and reference concrete mixtures decreased with age. This was attributed

to improvement in microstructure of the material due to additional calcium silicate

hydrate (C-S-H) resulting from pozzolanic reactions of the fly ash in addition to C-S-

H generation from portland cement reaction.

2. Partial replacement of regular sand with either BA or UFS resulted in reduction in

compressive strength, freezing and thawing resistance, and abrasion resistance of

these masonry products.

3. Partial replacement of cement with FA resulted in improvement in compressive

strength, freezing and thawing resistance, and abrasion resistance of these masonry

products.

4. In general, products made with UFS showed higher compressive strength than

those with BA.

5. Products made with BA showed better freezing and thawing resistance and abrasion

resistance and lower drying shrinkage than those with made UFS.

6. In warm regions, all the bricks (DR1 through DR6) could be used for building both

interior and exterior walls. In cold regions, only DR1 (control) and DR2 (25% FA)

bricks could be used for building exterior walls. All the other bricks (DR3 through

DR6) could be used for building interior walls in cold regions.

7. In warm regions, all of the blocks (DL1 through DL6) could be used for building both

interior and exterior walls. In cold regions, DL1 (control), DL2 (25% FA), DL3 (25%

FA and BA), and DL5 (25% FA and UFS) blocks could be used for building exterior

walls. DL4 (35% FA and BA) and DL6 (35% FA and UFS) blocks could be used for

building interior walls in cold regions.

8. None of the paving stones, including control paving stones, met the compressive

strength and the water absorption requirements of ASTM for concrete paving

stones. However, paving stone mixture DS2 (15% FA) showing strength and

absorption equivalent to the control paving stone mixture is suitable for typical

construction work.

REFERENCES

1. American Coal Ash Association, “1997 Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production and Use,” Alexandria, VA, 1998, 2 pages.

2. “Coal Combustion Byproduct (CCB) Production & Use: 1966-1993: Report for Coal Burning Electric Utilities in the United States”, American Coal Ash Association, Alexandria, VA, April 1995, 68 pages.

3. Naik, T. R., “Foundry Industry By-Products Utilization,” University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Center for By-Products Utilization, Report No. CBU-1989-01, February 1989, 23 pages.

4. “Wisconsin Cast Metal Association 1996 Foundry Survey Results,” Wisconsin Cast Metal Association, 1997, 4 pages.

5. “Final Report on Alternate Utilization of Foundry Waste Sand,” A Report Prepared for Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, American Foundrymen’s Society, Chicago, IL, August 1991, pp. 39-41.

6. Ramme, B. W., and Kohl, T. A., “Wisconsin Electric’s Coal Combustion Products Utilization Program,” Proceedings of the 1998 60th Annual American Power Conference, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, Vol. 60, No. 2, 1998, pp. 887-894.

7. Blackstock, T., “Coal Combustion By-Products: Opportunities for Utilization,” Proceedings of the 1997 59th Annual American Power Conference, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, Vol. 59, No. 2, 1997, pp. 1151-1154.

8. Mehta, P. K., “Concrete—Structure, Properties, and Materials,” Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Second Edition, 1993, 548 pages.

9. Tyson, S., and Blackstock, T., “Overview of Coal Combustion Byproduct (CCB) Production and Use in the USA,” Proceedings of the 57th Annual American Power Conference, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, Vol. 57, No. 1, Apr 18-20, 1995, pp. 292-297.

10. Ghafoori, N., and Bucholc, J., “Investigation of Lignite-Based Bottom Ash for Structural Concrete,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, New York, NY, Vol. 8, No. 3, August 1996, pp. 128-137.

11. Ghafoori, N., and Bucholc, J., “Properties of High-Calcium Dry Bottom Ash Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, Farmington Hills, MI, Vol. 94, No. 2, Mar-Apr 1997, pp. 90-101.

12. Bakoshi, T., Kohno, K., Kawasaki, S., and Yamaji, N., “Strength and Durability of Concrete Using Bottom Ash as Replacement for Fine Aggregate,” 1998 Fourth CANMET/ACI/JCI International Symposium on Advances in Concrete Technology, American Concrete Institute, Publication SP 179, 1998, pp. 159-172.

13. Wei, L., “Utilization of Coal Combustion By-Products for Masonry Production,” Master’s Degree Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, January 1992, 199 pages.

14. Javed, S., Lovell, C. W., and Wood, L. E., “Waste Foundry Sand in Asphalt Concrete,” Transportation Research Record, No. 1437, National Research Council, Washington DC, 1994, pp. 27-34.

15. Parikh, D. M., “Utilization of Foundry By-Products as Construction Materials,” Master’s Degree Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, College of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, December 1992, 129 pages.

16. Tharaniyil, M. P., “Materials of Construction Made from Used Foundry Sands,” Master’s Degree Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, May 1993, 126 pages.

17. Domann, R. A., “Beneficial Utilization of Used Foundry Sands in Portland Cement Concrete,” Master’s Degree Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, August 1997, 120 pages.

18. “Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.02, Concrete and Aggregates,” American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1996.

19. Malhotra, V. M., and Ramezanianpour, A. A., “Fly Ash in Concrete,” Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2nd edition, 1994, 307 pages.

20. Huizer, A., and Day, R. L., “Environmentally Friendly Masonry Unit Manufactured from Waste Products,” International Journal for Housing Science and Its Applications, International Association for Housing Science, Coral Gables, FL, Vol. 18, No. 4, 1994, pp. 251-262.

21. Naik, T. R., and Singh, S. S., “Flowable Slurry Containing Foundry Sands,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, New York, NY, Vol. 9, No. 2, May 1997, pp. 93-102.

22. Lessiter, M. J., “Constructing New Markets for Spent Foundry Sand,” Modern Casting, November 1993, pp. 27-29.

23. “Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.01, Cement; Lime; Gypsum,” American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1996.

24. “Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.05, Chemical-Resistant Materials; Vitrified Clay, Concrete, Fiber-Cement Products; Mortars; Masonry,” American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1996.

25. Chun, Yoon-Moon, "Manufacture of Cast Concrete Products Using Fly Ash, Bottom Ash, and Used Foundry Sand," M. S. Thesis, University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee, 1999.

Table 1. Physical Properties of Type I Portland Cement Used

ASTM Test Cement Requirement of

ASTM C 150

C 185 Air Content of Mortar, volume % 7.0 12 Max.

C 204 Fineness by Air Permeability Apparatus, m

2/kg

384 280 Min.

C 151 Autoclave Expansion, % 0.07 0.80 Max.

C 109 Compressive Strength of Cement Mortars, MPa: 1 day

12.9

------

3 days 23.2 1740 Min.

7 days 26.7 2760 Min.

28 days 33.2 ------

C 191 Time of Setting by Vicat Needle:

Initial Setting Time, minute 130 45~375

C 188 Specific Gravity 3.13 ------

Table 2. Chemical Composition of Type I Portland Cement Used

Analysis Cement Requirement of

ASTM C 150

Oxides SiO2, % 20.3 ------

Al2O3, % 4.3 ------

Fe2O3, % 2.6 ------

CaO, % 62.1 ------

MgO, % 4.2 6.0 Max.

TiO2, % 0.00 ------

K2O, % 1.08 ------

Na2O, % 0.11 ------

SO3, %: When C3A <= 8% 3.9 3.0 Max.

When C3A > 8% NA 3.5 Max.

Loss On Ignition, % 1.4 3.0 Max.

Insoluble Residue, % N.A. 0.75 Max.

Compounds

C3S, % 42.8 ------

C4AF, % 7.4 ------

C2S, % 13.8 ------

C3A, % 3.2 ------

Amorphous, % 32.8 ------

Table 3. Physical Properties of Class F Fly Ash Used

Test O.C.P.P. Class

F Fly Ash Requirement of

ASTM C 618

Strength Activity Index, with cement, % of control:

7 days 83 75 Min.

28 days 89 75 Min.

Water Requirement, % of control 96 105 Max.

Autoclave Expansion, %: -0.80 ~ + 0.80

25%* Fly Ash 0.01

35%* Fly Ash -0.01

Fineness by the 45-m Sieve, % retained

20 34 Max.

Specific Gravity 2.36 ------

* Percentage of cement replaced with fly ash.

Table 4. Chemical Composition of Class F Fly Ash Used

Analysis Result Requirement of

ASTM C 618

Oxides SiO2, % 51.0 ------

Al2O3, % 23.3 ------

Fe2O3, % 7.1 ------

CaO, % 11.1 ------

MgO, % 2.7 ------

TiO2, % 1.1 ------

K2O, % 1.0 ------

Na2O, % 1.1 ------

SiO2+Al2O3+Fe2O3, % 81.3 70.0 Min.

SO3, % 0.6 5.0 Max.

Moisture Content, % 0.1 3.0 Max.

Loss On Ignition, % 1.1 6.0 Max.

Compounds

SiO2, % 7.0 ------

AlSi2O5, % 8.8 ------

CaSO4, % 0.0 ------

C3A, % 1.8 ------

CaAl2SiO7, % 0.0 ------

Amorphous, % 82.5 ------

Table 5. Physical Properties of Regular Sand and Used Foundry Sand

Requirements Grading Deleterious Substances Soundness

ASTM C 136 C 142 C 117 C 40 C 88

Aggregate Tested

Fineness Modulus

Clay Lumps & Friable

Particles (%)

Mat’l. Finer

than 75-m (No. 200) Sieve (%)

Organic Impurities (Organic

Plate No.)

Soundness of Agg.*

(% Weight Loss)

DRS Sand 2.91 0 1.9 --- 1.5

DL Sand 3.19 --- --- < 1 ---

UFS 1.17 --- 9.7 < 3 ---

ASTM C 33 2.30~3.10 3.0 Max. 3.0 Max.** 3 Max. 10.0 Max.

* Tested in sodium sulfate solution. ** For concrete subject to abrasion. For all other concrete, 5% max.

ASTM C 566 C 29 C 128

Aggregate Tested

As Rcv’d

Moisture Content

(%)

Unit Weight (kg/m

3)

Voids (%)

Bulk Specific Gravity,

Dry Basis


SSD Basis

Apparent Specific Gravity

SSD Absorp-

tion (%)

DRS Sand 4.3 1778 32 2.63 2.67 2.73 1.4

DL Sand 6.7 1810 --- --- --- --- ---

UFS 1.5 1538 28 2.14 2.16 2.2 1.3

DRS: Brick and Paving Stones DL: Block UFS: Used Foundry Sand --- Not Available.

Table 6. Gradation of Regular Sand and Used Foundry Sand

Aggregate Tested*

Percent Passing

3/8-in. No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No. 100

9.5 mm

4.75 mm

2.36 mm

1.18 mm

600 m 300 m 150 m

DRS Sand 100 100 84 66 44 13 2

DL Sand 100 99 76 56 36 13 2

UFS 100 100 100 99 97 77 9

ASTM C 33 100 95~100 80~100 50~85 25~60 10~30 2~10

DRS: Bricks and Paving Stones DL: Blocks UFS: Used Foundry Sand

Table 7. Physical Properties of Bottom Ash (BA)

ASTM C 40 C 641 C 114

Aggregate Tested Organic Impurities (Organic Plate No.)

Staining Mat'l. (Staining Index)

Loss On Ignition (%)

BA < 1 10 2.7

Requirement of ASTM C 331

3 Max. < 80 12.0 Max.

ASTM C 142 C 136 C 29 C 151 C 157

Aggregate Tested


Particles (%)

Fineness Modulus

Unit Weight (kg/m

3)

Popout Materials (No. of

popouts)

Drying Shrinkage of Conc.

(%)

BA 2.5 3.30 769 0 0.05

Requirement of ASTM C

331 2.0 Max. ------

1121 Max.

0 0.10 Max.

ASTM C 566 C 29 C 127 and C 128

Aggregate Tested

As Rcv’d Moisture Content

(%)

Void Content

(%)


Dry Basis


SSD Basis

Apparent Specific Gravity

SSD Absorp- tion (%)

BA 20.0 60 1.91 1.96 2.01 2.7

Table 8. Chemical Composition of Bottom Ash

Analysis Bottom Ash

Oxides SiO2, % 54.4 Al2O3, % 21.7 Fe2O3, % 7.0 CaO, % 9.7 MgO, % 1.9 TiO2, % 1.0 K2O, % 0.8 Na2O, % 0.8

Loss On Ignition, % 2.7

Table 9. Gradation of Bottom Ash

Aggregate Tested

Percent Passing

3/8-in. No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No. 100

9.5 mm

4.75 mm

2.36 mm

1.18 mm

600 m 300 m 150 m

Bottom Ash 100 86 66 47 34 24 13

Requirement of ASTM

C 331 100 85~100 ------ 40~80 ------ 10~35 5~25

Table 10. Physical Properties of Coarse Aggregates

ASTM C 136 C 142 C 117 C 88

Aggregate Tested

Fineness Modulus


Particles (%)

Mat’l Finer

than 75-m (No. 200) Sieve (%)

Soundness of Agg.* (%

Weight Loss)

DRS Co. Agg. 5.05 0 3.5 6.0

DL Co. Agg. 5.02 --- --- ---

Requirement of ASTM C 33

------ 2.0 Max. 1.0 Max. 12.0 Max.

* Tested in sodium sulfate solution.

ASTM C 566 C 29 C 127

Aggregate Tested

As Rcv’d

Moisture Content

(%)

Unit Weigh

t (kg/m

3

)

Voids (%)


Dry Basis


SSD Basis

Apparent

Specific Gravity

SSD Absorp- tion (%)

DRS Co. Agg.

2.3 1586 41 2.70 2.74 2.82 1.6

DL Co. Agg.

2.3 1554 --- --- --- --- ---

DRS: Bricks and Paving Stones DL: Blocks Co. Agg.: Coarse Aggregate. --- Not Available.

Table 11. Gradation of Coarse Aggregates

Aggregate Tested

Percent Passing

3/8-in. No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. 30 No. 50 No. 100

9.5 mm

4.75 mm

2.36 mm

1.18 mm

600 m 300 m 150 m

DRS Co. Agg.

100 68 14 5 3 3 3

DL Co. Agg.

100 69 14 5 4 3 3

Requirement of ASTM

C 33

85~100

10~30 0~10 0~5 ------ ------ ------

DRS: Bricks and Paving Stones DL: Blocks Co. Agg.: Coarse Aggregate.

Table 12. Mixture Proportions for Bricks

Plant: Best Block Co., Racine, WI

Mixture Number DR1 DR2 DR3 DR4 DR5 DR6

Cement, kg/m3 199 157 145 128 157 136

Fly Ash, kg/m3 0 65 59 89 65 95

Water kg/m3*

86 95 118 163 110 131

Sand, SSD, kg/m3 1388 1415 987.8 860 1068 922

9.5 mm Bottom Ash, SSD, kg/m

3

0 0 285 406 0 0

Used Foundry Sand, SSD, kg/m

3

0 0 0 0 365 510

9.5 mm Coarse Aggregates, SSD, kg/m

3

463 484 448 445 484 481

Density of Freshly Cast Bricks, kg/m

3

2131 2211 2050 2098 2242 2275

*Estimated by the microwave test procedure

Table 13. Mixture Proportions for Paving Stones


Mixture Number DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4 DS5 DS6

Cement, kg/m3 383 332 303 252 314 267

Fly Ash, kg/m3 0 74 68 107 68 113

Water kg/m3 95 107 122 122 104 104

Sand, SSD, kg/m3 1305 1329 911 745 949 792

9.5 mm Bottom Ash, SSD, kg/m

3

0 0 273 350 0 0


3

0 0 0 0 323 436


3

445 451 412 389 430 412

Density of Freshly Cast Paving Stones, kg/m

3

2227 2291 2082 1970 2195 2131


Table 14. Mixture Proportions for Blocks


Mix. No. DL1 DL2 DL3 DL4 DL5 DL6

Cement, kg/m3 217 166 157 131 166 134

Fly Ash, kg/m3 0 68 65 89 68 92

Water kg/m3 95 101 101 119 148 157

Sand, SSD, kg/m3 1448 1469 1044 863 1092 890

9.5 mm max. Bottom Ash, SSD, kg/m

3

0 0 309 421 0 0


3

0 0 0 0 380 504


3

498 507 481 460 507 478

Concrete Density, kg/m

3

2259 2307 2147 2082 2371 2259


Table 15. Compressive Strength and Water Absorption Requirements of ASTM

C 55 for Concrete Bricks

Compressive

Water Weight Oven-Dry

Grade Strength*, Absorption*, Classification

Density*,

min., MPa max., kg/m3 kg/m

3

N** 24

160 Normal 2002 or more

208 Medium 1682-2002

S*** 17

208 Normal 2002 or more

240 Medium 1682-2002

* Average of three units at the time of delivery to the purchaser. ** Grade N—For use where high strength and resistance to moisture

penetration and severe frost action are desired. *** Grade S—For general use where moderate strength and resistance

to frost action and moisture are required.

Table 16. Weight Classification and Absorption Grade of Bricks

Mixture Number DR1 DR2 DR3 DR4 DR5 DR6

Oven-Dry Density, kg/m

3*

2100 2100 1920 1910 2110 2110

Weight Classification Normal Normal Medium

Medium

Normal Normal

Water Absorption Requirement of ASTM C 55 for Grade N Bricks, max., kg/m3

160 162 208 208 160 160

Water Absorption, kg/m

3*

170 151 194 184 149 149

Water Absorption Grade

S N N N N N

*Actual of test results from five test ages, three specimens for each test

age.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330

Age, days

Co

mp

ress

ive

Str

eng

th, M

Pa

DR1 ( 0% FA, 0% BA, 0% UFS)

DR2 (25% FA, 0% BA, 0% UFS)

DR3 (25% FA, 25% BA, 0% UFS)

DR4 (35% FA, 35% BA, 0% UFS)

DR5 (25% FA, 0% BA, 25% UFS)

DR6 (35% FA, 0% BA, 35% UFS)

ASTM Requirement for Grade N Bricks

ASTM Requirement for Grade S Bricks

FA: Fly Ash

BA: Bottom Ash

UFS: Used Foundry Sand

Figure 1 Compressive Strength of Bricks vs. Age

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Freezing and Thawing Cycle

Wei

gh

t L

oss

, %

of

W d

ry, in

i

DR1 ( 0% FA, 0% BA, 0% UFS)

DR2 (25% FA, 0% BA, 0% UFS)

DR3 (25% FA, 25% BA, 0% UFS)

DR4 (35% FA, 35% BA, 0% UFS)

DR5 (25% FA, 0% BA, 25% UFS)

DR6 (35% FA, 0% BA, 35% UFS)

Age of specimens at start of

freezing and thawing test: 74 days

FA: Fly Ash

BA: Bottom Ash


Thickness of specimens: 5.7 cm

Tested in plain water.

Figure 2 Weight Loss of Bricks vs. Freezing and Thawing Cycle per ASTM C

1262 [24]

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Drying Time, daysD

ryin

g S

hri

nk

ag

e, %

DR1 ( 0% FA, 0% BA, 0% UFS)

DR2 (25% FA, 0% BA, 0% UFS)

DR5 (25% FA, 0% BA, 25% UFS)

Trendline for DR1

Trendline for DR2

Trendline for DR5

FA: Fly Ash

BA: Bottom Ash


Age of specimes

at start of shrinkage test: 270 days

Figure 3 Drying Shrinkage of Bricks vs. Drying Time (Mix. No.: DR1, DR2, and

DR5)

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Drying Time, daysD

ryin

g S

hri

nk

ag

e, %

DR3 (25% FA, 25% BA, 0% UFS)

DR4 (35% FA, 35% BA, 0% UFS)

DR6 (35% FA, 0% BA, 35% UFS)

Trendline for DR3

Trendline for DR4

Trendline for DR6

FA: Fly Ash

BA: Bottom Ash


Age of specimes

at start of shrinkage test: 340 days

Figure 4 Drying Shrinkage of Bricks vs. Drying Time (Mix. No.: DR3, DR4, and

DR6)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330

Age, days

Co

mp

ress

ive

Str

eng

th, M

Pa

DS1 ( 0% FA, 0% BA, 0% UFS)

DS2 (15% FA, 0% BA, 0% UFS)

DS3 (15% FA, 25% BA, 0% UFS)

DS4 (25% FA, 35% BA, 0% UFS)

DS5 (15% FA, 0% BA, 25% UFS)

DS6 (25% FA, 0% BA, 35% UFS)

ASTM Requirement for Paving Stones

FA: Fly Ash

BA: Bottom Ash


Figure 5 Compressive Strength of Paving Stones vs. Age

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450


Wei

gh

t L

oss

, %

of

W d

ry, in

i

DS1 ( 0% FA, 0% BA, 0% UFS)

DS2 (15% FA, 0% BA, 0% UFS)

DS3 (15% FA, 25% BA, 0% UFS)

DS4 (25% FA, 35% BA, 0% UFS)

DS5 (15% FA, 0% BA, 25% UFS)

DS6 (25% FA, 0% BA, 35% UFS)

FA: Fly Ash

BA: Bottom Ash



freezing and thawing test: 74 daysThickness of specimens: 5.7 cm


Figure 6 Weight Loss of Paving Stones vs. Freezing and Thawing Cycle per

ASTM C 1262 [24]

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Test Age, days

Co

mp

ress

ive

Str

eng

th, M

Pa

DL1 ( 0% FA, 0% BA, 0% UFS)

DL2 (25% FA, 0% BA, 0% UFS)

DL3 (25% FA, 25% BA, 0% UFS)

DL4 (35% FA, 35% BA, 0% UFS)

DL5 (25% FA, 0% BA, 25% UFS)

DL6 (35% FA, 0% BA, 35% UFS)

ASTM Requirement for Blocks

FA: Fly Ash

BA: Bottom Ash


Figure 7 Compressive Strength of Blocks vs. Age

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Wei

gh

t L

oss

, %

of

W d

ry, in

i

DL1 ( 0% FA, 0% BA, 0% UFS)

DL2 (25% FA, 0% BA, 0% UFS)

DL3 (25% FA, 25% BA, 0% UFS)

DL4 (35% FA, 35% BA, 0% UFS)

DL5 (25% FA, 0% BA, 25% UFS)

DL6 (35% FA, 0% BA, 35% UFS)

Thickness of specimens: 3.3 cm


FA: Fly Ash

BA: Bottom Ash



freezing and thawing test: 154 days

Figure 8 Weight Loss of Blocks vs. Freezing and Thawing Cycle per ASTM C

1262 [24]

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Drying Time, daysD

ryin

g S

hri

nk

ag

e, %

DL1 ( 0% FA, 0% BA, 0% UFS)

DL2 (25% FA, 0% BA, 0% UFS)

DL3 (25% FA, 25% BA, 0% UFS)

Trendline for DL1

Trendline for DL2

Trendline for DL3

FA: Fly Ash

BA: Bottom Ash


Age of specimes

at the start of shrinkage test: 240 days

Figure 9 Drying Shrinkage of Blocks vs. Drying Time (Mix. No.: DL1, DL2, and

DL3)

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Drying Time, daysD

ryin

g S

hri

nk

ag

e, %

DL4 (35% FA, 35% BA, 0% UFS)

DL5 (25% FA, 0% BA, 25% UFS)

DL6 (35% FA, 0% BA, 35% UFS)

Trendline for DL4

Trendline for DL5

Trendline for DL6

FA: Fly Ash

BA: Bottom Ash


Age of specimes

at the start of shrinkage test: 310 days

Figure 10 Drying Shrinkage of Blocks vs. Drying Time (Mix. No.: DL4, DL5, and

DL6)

center for by-products utilization cbu reports/rep-378.pdf · dr. tarun r. naik is director of the...

Documents