NCC Meeting September 18, 2012

Presented by Nancy Whiting

Applied Concrete Research Initiative Purdue University

ACRI

Study Advisory Committee (SAC): Tommy Nantung, INDOT Office of Research (PA) Tony Zander, INDOT Office of Mat’ls Mgmt Bob Rees, INDOT, Office of Mat’ls Mgmt - Geologist Mike Byers, ACPA, Indiana Chapter Director George Williams, Rogers Group Inc. – Aggregate Producer Nelson Shaffer, Indiana Geological Survey - Geologist

Project Team Includes Mark Snyder, PhD, PE, Consultant Jan Olek, Purdue , PhD, PE Belayneh Desta and Aravind Tankasala (Purdue PhD Candidates)

ACRI Developed by Whiting

ACRI

OR

INDOT MN/DOT

Potential 7 Days

NOW ~90 Days

ASTM C666 FT Durability of Concrete Prisms

Develop a reliable, quick test method for determining F/T resistance of INDOT carbonate quarried aggregates

Use existing HFT equipment developed by INDOT and equipment refined by MN/DOT

Test Aggregates with: Good F/T Durability in Concrete Poor F/T Durability in Concrete Variable or unknown performance

Compare to ITM 210 F/T Test results Adapt HFT equipment & procedures as necessary

ACRI

Developed by Whiting

Theory – similar to pressures caused by freezing front moving through aggregate

Procedures Oven dry mat’l of known gradation Fill Chamber w/aggregate Fill chamber w/water Pressurize with Nitrogen (~1200 psi) Quick release (critical) Re-pressurize and repeat,10 cycles Dry & sieve Repeat for a total of 50 cycles Results measured as mass loss 7-working days to complete

ACRI ACRI

ACRI

ACRI

ACRI

ACRI

Literature Review

HFT Equipment

Identify and Collect Aggregate Sources

HFT and FT Testing (total of 19 sources)

Analyze Test Results

Recommend Standards and Specifications

Report

MN/DOT Small Chamber Holds ~ 6lbs of aggregate

MN/DOT Large Chamber Holds ~30 lbs of aggregate

INDOT Chamber Holds ~30 lbs of aggregate Developed by Whiting

Aggregate from 18 carbonate quarries: • 6 with good field performance in PCCP (AP) • 6 with poor field performance in PCCP (non-AP) • 6 with variable or unknown performance (?)

Compare HFT results to ITM 210 (F/T) (Mod. ASTM C666) • Mass Loss • Dilation • Relative Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity (DF)

Fit HFT mass loss into existing model or develop new model that compares well to ITM 210 test results

ACRI

A: FT Durable B: Non-FT Durable C: Variable or Unknown

Performance in PCCP

ACRI

ACRI

SOURCE Sp Gr %Abs A1 2.625 2.39 A2 2.621 1.69 A3 2.751 0.89 A4 2.679 0.88 A5 2.485 5.20 A6 tbd tbd B1 2.560 4.80 B2 2.656 2.50 B3 2.637 1.48 B4 2.671 1.56 B5 2.650 1.88 B6 tbd tbd C1 2.718 2.16 C2 2.478 4.17 C3 2.668 1.47 C4 2.684 1.08 C5 2.477 5.13

A = Approved by INDOT for PCC pavements (AP) B = Not approved by INDOT for PCC pavements C = Variable or unknown performance

MN/DOT Aggregate Size Fraction Tested 3/4” – 1.5” Greatest impact to F/T durability Streamline test: use size fraction w/ greatest impact

Concerns INDOT #8s: only 5% - 25% are ¾”plus Up to 460lbs of aggregate for each test (+3/4) May not accurately represent #8’s performance

Propose using ½” plus fraction Large enough to influence F/T durability 30% to 60% of AP #8s are in this size range More accurately represent INDOT AP aggregate performance

ACRI Developed by Whiting

ACRI

ASTM C666 (Procedure A) As received gradation Equipment at Purdue and INDOT Research Freeze and thaw in water

INDOT ITM 210 is slightly different Uses specific gradation Procedure B (freeze in air, thaw in water) Long history of relating results to field performance

How do Procedures A and B compare? What DF corresponds to acceptance criteria of

0.06% length change

ACRI

R² = 0.9277

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

-0.01 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

Procedure A

R² = 0.8629

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

Procedure B

R² = 0.9204

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

Procedure B

Without questionable data point C1

R² = 0.9217

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

DF

Procedure B

Proc

edur

e A

)

R² = 0.9506

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

% Length Change

Procedure B

Proc

edur

e A

Source + ¾” Gradation Regression Model Total Gradation Regression Model

A1 -13.953% 0.145% A2 -13.179% 0.134% A3 -14.737% 0.163% A4 -12.65% 0.14% B1 - 8.851% 0.285% B2 -14.533% 0.170% B3 -14.438% 0.174%

B4 -13.385% 0.174 B6 -14.170% 0.170% C1 -11.565% 0.160%

ACRI

ITM 210 Acceptance Criteria: 0.060% in 350 cycles ~0.0171% per 100 cycles

ACRI

A

B

C

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5

3/4 5/8 1/2 3/8 5/16 1/4 #4 PAN

AP aggregate non- AP aggregate unknown

DF: 95 97 98 94 92 90 78 49 60 62 35 60 40 ? 54 78 86

After 50 cycles

B1 Several particles w/cracks

Mass Loss ¾” = 26.46% 5/8” = 27.80% ½” = 1.00%

B1

A2 Mass Loss ¾” = 6.00%

5/8” =11.03% ½” = -5.00%

A3 Mass Loss ¾” = 19.19% 5/8” = 8.42% ½” = -6.32%

Develop Appropriate Model To Identify and Quantify Effects of:

Chert Particles Cracked Particles

Examine FT Beams Aggregate type(s) failing Failure mechanism

B5 ΔL = 0.209% (Procedure A) ΔL = 0.246% (Procedure B) DF = 35 (A)

Original INDOT Equipment

Initial Refinements INDOT Equipment

Concerns

• Chamber reduced in size to minimize excess space and overall pressure needed

• No rotation necessary

• Exhaust-port enlarged & at top

• Inside of top has slight conical shape with highest point at the ‘exhaust’ opening - trapped air (if any) will immediately escape upon release of pressure.

exaggerated

�� Hydraulic Fracture Test (HFT)�to Determine Aggregate �Freeze-Thaw Durability�SPR-3402SPR -3402 Hydraulic Fracture Test (HFT)Rapid Testing of Aggregate F/T DurabilityObjectives and Study ApproachWhat is HFTHFT Testing of Aggregate F/T DurabilityPlace aggregate into chamber�Flood with waterPressurize with nitrogen (1200psi)�Release quickly, repeatFT susceptible aggregates will crack, break, reduce in size Work PlanSlide Number 11HFT EquipmentHFT Work PlanAggregates CollectedSpecific Gravity and Absorption TestsTest Procedure Changes HFT Data Collection SheetFreeze-Thaw (F/T) TestingDF vs %Length ChangeDF vs %Length ChangeDF vs %Length ChangeComparing Procedure A vs BExisting HFT Regression Models�to Predict Dilation (%Length change) �per 100 cyclesHFT -Change in Mass after 50 cyclesHFT Results - %Mass ChangeSlide Number 26A2Data Analysis Continues INDOT HFT EquipmentTesting Using the Refined �INDOT HFT EquipmentContinued Refinement of INDOT HFT EquipmentAny Questions ?