report no. rec-erc-89-3, "soil laboratory compaction

Denver Office

October 1989

U. S. Department of the interior Bureau of Reclamation

Soil Laboratory Compaction Techniques Applied to Roller-Compacted Concrete

October 1989 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZAT ION CODE

7 . AUTHOR^) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZAT ION

Theresa J. Casias Abel A. Benavidez R E P O R T NO.

Vaughan D. Goldsmith REC-ERC-89-3

9 . PERFORMING O R G A N I Z A T I O N NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK U N I T NO.

Bureau of Reclamation Denver Office 11. CONTRACT OR G R A N T NO.

Denver, Colorado 80225

13. T Y P E O F REPORT AND PERIOD C O V E R E D

12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS

Same I 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

Dl BR IS. S U P P L E M E N T A R Y NOTES

Microfiche and hard copy available at the Denver Office, Denver, Colorado.

Editor: RNW

16. ABSTRACT

A multiphase research program was designed and initiated by the Bureau to evaluate soil and concrete testing methods for use with RCC. This report documents phase I of the research program, which investigated the use of soil compaction techniques for RCC. The testing program evaluated effects of compactive effort and low plasticity fines content on an RCC mix currently used in Bureau research. Compressive strength and durability tests were performed on compacted test specimens. Standard Bureau soil and soil-cement laboratory testing procedures were modified for use in the program. Index unit weight and concrete consistency tests were performed for comparison purposes. Laboratory test data were evaluated using traditional soil and concrete theory. Test results indicate mix designs and preparation of specimens using laboratory compaction techniques provide an alternative for RCC. However, impact compaction testing should be limited to RCC mixes containing only hard, sound aggregate. Results of this study may be applied to soil-cement with gravel.

17. K E Y WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS

o . D E S C R I P T O R S - - compaction/ aggregates/ concrete/ roller-compacted concrete/ soil- cement with gravel/ fly ash/ soil compaction/ geotechnical applications/ compactive effort/ low plasticity fines/ compressive strength/ wet-dry durability tests/ freeze-thaw durability tests/ index unit weight/ concrete consistency/ aggregate mixes/ moisture content/ gradation/

c . COSATI Field/Group 1303 COWRR: 13M SR IM:

18. D ISTRIBUT ION S T A T E M E N T 19. S E C U R I T Y CLASS 21 . NO. O F PAGE (THIS REPORT)

Available from the National Technical Information Service, Operations UNCLASSIFIED

95 Division. 5285 Port Royal Road. Springfie:d, Virginia 2216 1 .

20. SECURITY CLASS 2 2 . P R I C E ( T H I S PAGE)

1 UNCLASSIFIED )

REC-ERC-89-3

SOIL LABORATORY COMPACTION TECHNIQUESAPPLIED TO ROLLER-COMPACTED CONCRETE

byTheresa J. CasiasVaughan D. GoldsmithAbel A. Benavidez

October 1989

Geotechnical Services BranchResearch and Laboratory Services DivisionDenver OfficeDenver. Colorado

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR * BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many individuals offered valuable suggestions and informativecomments throughout the investigation program; it is apleasure to acknowledge their support.

The authors express thanks to the following who providedvaluable guidance and encouragement throughout theprogram: Paul C. Knodel, Chief, Geotechnical Branch; RichardA. Young, Technical Specialist, Geotechnical Branch; DeWayneA. Campbell, Head, Soil and Rock Mechanics Section; WilliamG. Austin, Head, Soil and Rock Testing Section; and MichaelB. Szygielski, Head, Project Studies Research and ComputerApplications Unit.

Thanks to those who assisted with testing: Stephen A. Coman,Bonnie S. Harper, Ricardo Olalde, and Alfred V. Scott. A specialthanks is extended to Stephen A. Coman for assistance inpreparing data, checking, and assembling the report; Mary AnnTrujillo for editorial assistance; Imogene Drapeau formanuscript and data preparation; and Timothy P. Dolen,Concrete and Structural Branch, for his valuable suggestions.Laboratory Shops personnel fabricated and modified equipmentin a timely manner, which was greatly appreciated throughoutthe investigation program.

The research described in this report was funded under theBureau of Reclamation Program Related Engineering andScientific Studies (PRESS) allocation No. DR-400, Soil-Cement.

A less detailed version of this report was published in RollerCompacted Concrete II, Proceedings of the Conferencesponsored by the Construction, Geotechnical Engineering, andMaterials Engineering Divisions of the American Society ofCivil Engineers, San Diego, California, February 29-March 2,1988.

The information contained in this report regarding commercial prod.ucts or firms may not be used for advertising or promotional purposesand is not to be construed as an endorsement of any product or firmby the Bureau of Reclamation.

CONTENTS

Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction ..

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '.' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusions ..

Description of testing program ..

Materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Aggregate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fines (Bonny loess) ........................................................................CementFly ash. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Water reducing admixtureWater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..

..

..

Equipment .Compactor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Molds .,.. ... ,.. ,... ...,... ,...Mixer ... ...,... ... .,. ... ...,. .., ,...

Testing programBatchingMixing , ,...

Mixes of aggregate with and without finesMixes of aggregate and cementitious materials without finesMixes of aggregate and cementitious materials with finesLaboratory impact compaction tests on aggregate mixes with fines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Laboratory impact compaction tests on RCC mixes.........................................

Compressive strengthDurability testsW-D durability tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F-T durability testsGravel breakdownIndex unit weight tests

Aggregate mix onlyRCC mixes (aggregate. cementitious materials. and fines)

Concrete consistency tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Percent compaction based on theoretical zero air void unit weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Recommendations .

Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIXESAppendix

ABCDEF

Terminology .Roller-compacted concrete materials and test dataMold and compactor modifications. drawing 101-D-656 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Laboratory test dataLaboratory testing proceduresCalculations for determining length of roller-compacted concrete durability test

specimens .

.

.

.

1/1

Page

1

1

1

2

4

6668888

889

10

1010111111121212141718182021212223

24

27

31

3341656977

89

Table

CONTENTS - Continued

TABLES

12

3456789

101112

Original roller-compacted concrete mix design - quantitiespercubicyard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Compactive effort summary - number of blows for 6-inch-diameter by 12-inch-high

mold using a 10.0-lbm rammer and 18-inch drop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Summary of specific gravity and absorption test results for coarse aggregate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Summary of laboratory compaction test results on mixes of aggregates and fines. . . . . . . . . . .Summary of laboratory compaction test results on roller-compacted concrete mixes.. ... ...Summary of average compressive strengths - days after compaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Summary of roller-compacted concrete durability tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Summary of gradation test results to determine aggregate breakdown. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Summary of index unit weight tests on aggregate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Summary of index unit weight tests on roller-compacted concrete mixes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Summary of concrete consistency tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Summary of theoretical percent compaction test data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURESFigure

12

345

The flow chart represents phase I of the research program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Compactive effort versus number of blows for 6-inch-diameter by 12-inch-high mold

using a 10.0-1 bm rammer and 18-inch drop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Modified compactor used for roller-compacted concrete testing program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Modified tamping rod used during test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .View of the extension rod (4-inch threaded adapter) used to lengthen the standard

front guide rod. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Extension rods fabricated to provide additional travel distance for the guide disk. . . . . . . . . . . .Mold centering guide aids in centering compaction mold on the baseplate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Collar aids compaction up to and slightly above the top of the compaction mold. . . . . . . . . . . .Modified concrete test cylinder mold used for roller-compacted concrete compaction

tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Modified roller-compacted concrete test cylinder compaction mold in comparison

to the standard soil-cement and Bureau compaction molds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Compaction curve of aggregate with 1° percent fines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Compaction curve of aggregate with 20 percent fines. .. ., .. .. . ... .., . ... ...View of roller-compacted concrete in a modified concrete mold during compaction

with a 10.0-lbm sector-faced rammer ,.......Roller-compacted concrete - maximum dry unit weight versus number of blows

pe r lift. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Roller-compacted concrete - optimum moisture content versus number of blows

per lift. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Compaction curve for roller-compacted concrete (27 blows per lift - 0, 1°, and

20% fines) .........................................................................Compaction curve for roller-compacted concrete (50 blows per lift - 0, 1°, and

20% fines) ,.......Compaction curve for roller-compacted concrete (80 blows per lift - 0, 1°, and

20% fines) .........................................................................Compaction curve for roller-compacted concrete (122 blows per lift - 0, 1°, and

20% fines)"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'"Compaction curve for roller-compacted concrete (0% fines - 27, 50, 80, and

122 blows per lift) ,.......Compaction curve for roller-compacted concrete (10% fines - 27, 50, 80, and

1 22 blows per lift) ...~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Compaction curve for roller-compacted concrete (20% fines - 27, 50, 80, and122 blows per lift) ..................................................................

6789

10

111213

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

iv

Page

6

77

121418222425252829

5

789

99

1011

11

111313

13

14

14

15

15

15

15

16

16

16

FigureCONTENTS - Continued

23

242526

Typical pair of roller-compacted concrete specimens prepared for compressivestrength testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Roller-compacted concrete specimen during compressive strength test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .View of a roller-compacted concrete specimen following compressive strength testing......Roller-compacted concrete - average compressive strength versus number of blows

per lift (0% fines) ,.....Roller-compacted concrete - average compressive strength versus number of blows

per lift (10% fines) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Roller-compacted concrete - average compressive strength versus number of blows

per lift (20% fines) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-day compressive strength versus fines content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28-day compressive strength versus fines content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90-day compressive strength versus fines content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .180-day compressive strength versus fines content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .360-day compressive strength versus fines content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Roller-compacted concrete - average compressive strength versus time (0% fines) .,......Roller-compacted concrete - average compressive strength versus time (10% fines) .,.....Roller-compacted concrete - average compressive strength versus time (20% fines) .......Roller-compacted concrete - average compressive strength versus water-cementitious

materials ratio (0% fines) ...........................................................Roller-compacted concrete - average compressive strength versus water-cementitious

materials ratio (10% fines) ..........................................................Roller-compacted concrete - average compressive strength versus water-cementitious

materials ratio (20% fines) .,........................................................Typical pair of roller-compacted concrete specimens cut and sized for durability testing. . . . .Brushing of roller-compacted concrete durability test specimen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Roller-compacted concrete - average wet-dry durability test results (12 cycles

of testing) ,......Roller-compacted concrete - average freeze-thaw durability test results (12 cycles

of testing) .........................................................................Washing and screening roller-compacted concrete over a U.S. Standard No.4 sieve after

compactionfor determinationof aggregatebreakdown. .. .. .. ., .. .. ,......Roller-compacted concrete - %- to 1-%-inch gravel loss versus number of blows

per lift (0, 10, and 20% fines) ,...............................Roller-compacted concrete - total gravel loss versus number of blows per lift

(0, 10, and 20% fines) ,........................................................View of roller-compacted concrete specimen following compressive strength testing.......Vibratory table, mold, and surcharge f')paratus used for performing maximum index

unit weight test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Roller-compacted concrete maximum index unit weight tests - wet unit weight

versus calculated moisture content (0,10, and 20% fines) .............................Roller-compacted concrete maximum index unit weight tests - dry unit weight

versus calculated moisture content (0,10, and 20% fines) .............................Roller-compacted concrete laboratory compaction, maximum index unit weight,

and concrete consistency tests - wet unit weight versus calculated moisturecontent (0% fines) ,........................................................

Roller-compacted concrete laboratory compaction, maximum index unit weight,and concrete consistency tests - wet unit weight versus calculated moisturecontent (10% fines) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Roller-compacted concrete laboratory compaction, maximum index unit weight,and concrete consistency tests - wet unit weight versus calculated moisturecontent (20% fines) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Roller-compacted concrete laboratory compaction, maximum index unit weight,and concrete consistency tests - dry unit weight versus calculated moisturecontent (0% fines) ,......

27

28

293031323334353637

38

39

404142

43

44

45

46

4748

49

50

51

52

53

54

v

Page

161717

18

18

181919191919202020

21

21

212222

22

22

23

24

2425

25

26

26

26

26

26

27

FigureCONTENTS-Continued

55 Roller-compacted concrete laboratory compaction, maximum index unit weight,and concrete consistency test - dry unit weight versus calculated moisturecontent (10% fines) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Roller-compacted concrete laboratory compaction, maximum index unit weight,and concrete consistency test - dry unit weight versus calculated moisturecontent (20% fines) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mechanically driven vibratory table having adjustable eccentrics modified toperform concrete consistency tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"Mortar ring" formed during roller-compacted concrete consistency test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Roller-compacted concrete consistency tests - wet unit weight versus calculated

moisture content (0, 1°, and 20% fines) ,............................Roller-compactedconcrete consistency tests - dry unit weight versus calculated

moisture content (0, 1°, and 20% fines) ,............................Wet unit weight versus moisture content (0% fines) ,...Wet unit weight versus moisture content (10% fines) ,...Wet unit weight versus moisture content (20% fines) ,...

56

57

5859

60

616263

vi

Page

27

27

2828

29

29303030

PURPOSE

Roller-compacted concrete (RCC) is a relatively newconstruction technique whereupon concrete isplaced and compacted with equipment normallyassociated with soil-type compaction technology.RCC differs from conventional no-slump concreteprincipally by requiring a consistency of sufficientstiffness to support the mass of vibratory rollers, buthaving a sufficient volume of paste to fully consol-idate under externally applied vibration. RCC hasrequired the blending of concrete and soil technologywhich has produced two primary design methodol-ogies in engineering practice, one based on classicalconcrete design and construction control techniquesand the other based on soil compaction andconstruction control techniques.

Currently, classical concrete techniques are used bythe Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, and private industry for both mix designand construction control, while soil compactiontechniques have been used for mix design andconstruction control of RCC by private industry [1].1Phase I of the testing program was developed tofurther investigate using soil compaction techniqueswith RCC and to make preliminary comparisonsbetween concrete and soil compaction approaches.The testing program was designed to evaluate theeffects of compactive effort and fines content on anRCC mix currently used in Bureau research. Bureausoil and soil-cement laboratory testing procedureswere modified for this program. This report docu-ments results of phase I of the testing program andpresents conclusions derived from evaluating dataobtained during testing.

INTRODUCTION

A laboratory testing program was designed by theBureau's Geotechnical Services Branch (Researchand Laboratory Services Division) to investigate useof soil compaction techniques with RCC. Thisprogram is phase I of a multistage research programdesigned to evaluate soil and concrete testingmethods for use with RCC. The effects of compactiveeffort and fines (material passing the U.S.A. Standardseries No. 200 sieve) content were evaluated for thecoarse-grained material.

Compressive strength and durability tests wereperformed on compacted test specimens. An RCCmix design currently used in a concrete technology-based RCC research program in the Bureau'sConcrete and Structural Branch was used as thebasis for mix designs in this investigation. The

1 Numbers in brackets refer to the bibliography.

Bureau's soil and soil-cement laboratory testingprocedures were modified for use in the program.Index unit weight and concrete consistency testswere performed for comparison purposes. Resultsof this study may be applied to soil-cement withgravel.

This report summarizes results of the laboratorytesting program, testing procedures, and equipmentmodifications.

SUMMARY

A laboratory testing program was initiated toinvestigate the use of soil compaction techniqueswith RCC. This is phase I of a multistage researchprogram designed to compare soil and concretetesting methods for use with RCC. The effects ofvaried compactive efforts and the addition of lowplasticity fines (Bonny loess) to RCC mixes wereevaluated. An RCC mix, containing 300 Ibm/yd3cementitious materials (50% fly ash and 50%cement) or 8.3 percent cementitious materials bydry mass of aggregate - currently used for aconcrete technology-based RCC research program-was used as the basis for the mix designs in thistesting program. Bureau of Reclamation soil and soil-cement laboratory test procedures were modified foruse in the program. Results of this study also canbe applied to coarse-grained soil-cement.

The testing program consisted of laboratory com-paction testing of aggregate mixes and RCC mixesat four compactive efforts:

. 7.2 ft-lbf/in3 (27 blows/lift)




The mixes contained three fines contents (0,10, and20%, by volume of aggregate).

Zero to two percent fines (minus No. 200 material)is standard for current Bureau RCC mixes. The mixescontaining only aggregate or aggregate and fineswere prepared by deleting cementitious materialsand water reducing admixture, but keeping otherconstituents in proportion to the original mix design.When fines were used in the RCC mix, computationsfor the percentage of fines were based on the volumeof aggregate only. The fines replaced an equalvolume of sand in the original mix.

Compressive strength and W-D and F-T(wet-dry andfreeze-thaw) durability tests were performed oncompacted specimens of RCC to evaluate the effectof different compactive efforts and fines contentson these properties. Gradation tests were performedon compacted specimens of RCC to determine theamount of gravel (coarse aggregate) breakdown

1

during the compaction process. In addition, indexunit weight and concrete consistency tests wereperformed for comparison.

For this testing program, test specimens werecompacted in 6-inch-diameter by 12-inch-highmodified concrete split steel molds ("Coulee" molds)using a 1O.O-Ibm sector-faced rammer dropped froma height of 18 inches. It was necessary to makeseveral modifications to the automatic tamper toaccommodate the 12-inch-high molds.

The compaction test specimens were compacted inthe mold in six lifts, each approximately 2 inchesthick after compaction, with a designated numberof blows per lift. Because of cement hydration,ovendry moisture content determinations providederratic test results. Therefore, the design moisturecontent (by dry batch mass) was used to calculatethe dry unit weight of each specimen. For eachcompaction test, at least five compacted specimenswere obtained, and the moisture contents versuscorresponding dry unit weights were plotted. Thepeak of the compaction curve defined the maximumdry unit weight and optimum moisture content.Maximum dry unit weights and optimum moisturecontents were used as the basis for preparingcompressive strength and durability test specimens.

Mixes for compressive strength test specimens wereprepared at optimum moisture contents determinedfrom the compaction test. The 6-inch-diameter by12-inch-high test specimens were prepared in asimilar manner as the laboratory compaction testspecimens. Ten specimens were prepared at eachenergy level and fines content so that two specimenseach could be tested at 7, 28, 90, 180, and 360days after compaction.

The W-D and F-T durability tests were performedon compacted specimens to determine if modifiedsoil-cement durability testing procedures could beapplied to RCC testing. Mixes for durability testspecimens were prepared at the optimum moisturecontents determined from compaction tests. The 6-inch-diameter cylinders were prepared in a similarmanner as those prepared for the compaction test.Following the initial curing phase, test specimenswere cut 5.77 inches long to provide the samerelationship of maximum aggregate size to surfacearea as provided by current soil-cement durabilitytesting procedures. Four specimens were preparedat each fines content and compactive effort so thattwo specimens each could be used for W-D and F-Tdurability testing.

Gradation tests were performed on specimens ofRCC compacted at each energy level and finescontent to determine the percentage of coarse

aggregate breakdown during the compactionprocess.

Wet method maximum index unit weight tests (withmodiJications to the testing procedure) wereperformed on RCC mixes prepared at the approx-imate optimum moisture contents determined foreach compactive effort and fines content. The mixeswere prepared at optimum moisture content becausewater could not be effectively added to the mixeswith cementitious materials during vibration in themold.

Concrete consistency tests were performed on mixesprepared at the approximate optimum moisturecontents determined for each compactive effort andfines content. A Vebe vibratory table was notavailable for this portion of the testing program, soa mechanically driven vibratory table havingadjustable eccentrics was calibrated to provide thesame frequency and amplitude of vibration as a Vebetable.

CONCLUSIONS

Several modifications to the automatic tamper wererequired to accommodate the 12-inch-high compac-tion molds.

When fines were used in the RCC mixes, materialwould stick to the mixer sides causing segregation.To eliminate this problem, it was necessary to stopthe mixer, scrape the inside, and continue mixingfor the remainder of the time.

Laboratory compaction tests showed that themaximum dry unit weight decreased and theoptimum moisture content increased with theaddition of fines. In addition, the maximum dry unitweight increased and the optimum moisture contentdecreased with an increase in compactive effort.

Compressive strength generally increased withincreased compactive effort and generally decreasedwith the addition of fines. Murphy [2] has found thatmaximum unconfined compressive strength andflexural strength are achieved when the percentfines is between 3 and 7. Studies by Schrader, etal. [3], have shown nonplastic fines contents of 4to 11 percent to be desirable. Additional studies onBureau of Reclamation RCC mixes may indicate anoptimum fines content between a and 10 percent.

Unconfined compressive strength generallydecreased with an increased water-cementitiousmaterials ratio, which follows traditional concretetheory for fully compacted concrete [4]. However,there is no way to determine ifdecreases in strengthcan be totally attributed to higher water-cementitious materials ratios or to lower compactive

2

efforts applied to the RCC specimens prepared athigher water-cementitious materials ratios.

The 90-, 180-, and 360-day compressive strengthtest results were somewhat erratic, with thespecimens compacted to the highest unit weightsnot consistently having the highest compressivestrengths. This may be due to several factors, suchas aggregate breakdown, not enough cement pasteto fill voids in the drier mixes, and variations in water-cementitious materials ratio.

Durability test results were inconclusive indicatingthat this test may not be the most appropriate forcoarse-grained material. The loss of large pieces ofaggregate during durability testing caused inconsist-ent test results. Small mass losses were obtainedfor all RCC durability test specimens, includingspecimens having lower compressive strengths.

Results of gradation tests on all compacted materialsshowed some gravel breakdown. High percentagesof gravel mass loss occurred when 80 and 122 blowsper lift were used for compaction. There was aminimal increase in gravel mass loss betweencompaction at 27 and 50 blows per lift. As expected,the highest percentage of gravel mass loss occurredin the largest gravel size, since there could not bebreakdown of larger particles to this size (% to 1-1;2inches). Mass losses in the % to 1-1;2-inch gravelranged from 4 to 27 percent. The test resultsindicated that the total gravel mass loss (6 to 17%)increased with compactive effort and generallydecreased with increased fines and moisturecontent; however, there was a significant increasein gravel mass loss between 50 and 80 blows perlift and a minimal increase in gravel mass lossbetween 27 and 50 blows per lift.

Maximum index unit weight test results on the RCCmixes were erratic indicating that this test may notbe the most appropriate for the material. Thecementitious materials and fines in the RCC mixesrestricted free movement of added water and,consequently, affected proper consolidation of thespecimens. The maximum index unit weight methodis not appropriate for soils with more than about12 to 15 percent fines. RCC mixes containing 10or more percent fines plus cement and fly ash, whichare prepared at low moisture contents, contain toohigh a percentage of fines to provide consistent andaccurate data using the current vibratory compactionprocedure.

Results of concrete consistency tests showed thata "mortar ring" (fig. 58) would not form in the moldfor the drier mixes. With the addition of fines, "mortarrings" would only form at the higher water-cementitious materials ratios. Consistency test wetunit weights were somewhat erratic; however, the

data did correlate closer to impact compaction testdata than did maximum index unit weight test data.The consistency' tests were performed using amechanically driven vibratory table with adjustableeccentrics, instead of a concrete Vebe vibratory table,thus possibly producing nonstandard results. The drymixes did not form the required "mortar ring." Voidswere visible in the drier consistency test specimensmaking volume determinations by water replace-ment method difficult and possibly inaccurate.

Laboratory test data also were evaluated usingtraditional concrete theory. The theoretical zero airvoid unit weight (a wet unit weight) was calculatedfor each RCC mix design. These results showed thatthe highest theoretical percent compaction occurredwhen 27 and 50 blows per lift were applied tocompaction test specimens. Maximum dry unitweights increased and optimum moisture contentsdecreased with increased compactive effort; how-ever, at the higher compactive efforts (80 and 122blows/lift), the RCC mixes were extremely dry,probably not forming enough cement paste to fillall voids. This indicates that theoretical percentcompaction is lower even with the higher unitweights. At the highest fines content (20%), thetheoretical percent compaction was substantiallylower for mixes prepared at all moisture contentsthan those prepared at the lower fines contents (0and 10%)

Results of the testing program indicate that impactcompaction testing should be limited to RCC mixescontaining only hard, sound aggregate. The compac-tive effort selected for testing should be low enoughto minimize gravel breakdown yet high enough toprovide adequate compaction. As aggregate breaksdown, material properties change and fracturedsurfaces may not get coated with cement paste,which may be reflected in lower compressivestrengths and higher durability losses. Compactionat the lowest energy level (27 blows/lift) was toolow as voids were observed over the entire surfaceof test specimens. Increased fines content andincreased moisture content reduce, but do noteliminate, gravel breakdown during impact compac-tion testing, thus increasing the desirability of finesin the mix design.

The optimum moisture content determined bylaboratory impact compaction methods is dependentupon the aggregates, fines content, cementitiouslTIaterials content, and compactive effort applied.Loss of strength occurs when the moisture contentis dry of optimum. Loss of strength also occurs wetof optimum due to higher water-cementitiousmaterials ratios. When selecting a compactive effortto determine optimum moisture content, consider-ation should be given to providing enough moistureto allow complete hydration and enough paste to

3

fill the voids. Moisture content is defined as massof water divided by dry mass of solids, expressedas a percentage. It is difficult to compare strengthsof mixes prepared at different moisture contentsbecause of variation in water-cementitious materialsratio.

Based on all test results, the compactive effort of13.3 ft-lbf/in3 (50 blows/lift) appears to provide thebest test specimens by impact compaction. This isthe recommended compactive effort for future RCCimpact compaction testing. A lower compactive effortthan described by Yates and Reeves [1] wasrecommended by the Bureau of Reclamationbecause of increased gravel breakdown at highercompactive efforts.

The test results indicate that mix designs andpreparation of specimens using laboratory compac-tion techniques provide a viable alternative for RCCmixes containing hard, sound aggregate. Thisconclusion also is supported by studies performedby Tayabji and Okamoto [5].

Accurate ovendried moisture contents cannot bedetermined directly for RCCmixes because of cementhydration and large sample sizes. To obtain arepresentative moisture sample, an extremely largesample of RCC is required. Because of the largesample size, the ovendrying process takes a longperiod of time during which the cement continuesto hydrate and moisture becomes trapped in the RCCmixture. Therefore, it is necessary to use calculatedmoisture contents based on the mix design. Furtherinvestigations should consider use of wet unitweights for evaluating RCC.

Further study should be given to developing avibratory (consolidation) test for use with coarse-grained material as impact compaction breaks downthe coarse particles, thus changing properties of theRCCmixture. A vibratory-type test better simulatesfield placement condition because RCCis compactedin the field with a vibratory roller. A vibration testis also needed for coarse-grained soil-cement as soil-cement mixtures are becoming coarser and vibratorycompaction methods have been used in recent soil-cement construction.

DESCRIPTION OF TESTING PROGRAM

The testing program consisted of laboratory impactcompaction tests using 4 different compactive efforts(7.2, 13.3, 21.2, and 32.4 ft-lbf/in3) on aggregatemixes and on RCCmixes containing 3 fines contents(0, 10, and 20%, by volume of aggregate). Zero totwo percent fines (minus No. 200 material) isstandard for current Bureau RCC mixes. Standardimpact compaction tests for soil are not appropriatefor and were not performed on the aggregate mixescontaining 0 percent fines. Compressive strength,

and wet-dry (W-D) and freeze-thaw (F-T) durabilitytests were performed on compacted specimens toevaluate the effects of different compactive effortsand fines contents. Gradation tests were performedon RCC specimens compacted at each energy leveland fines content to determine the amount of coarseaggregate breakdown occurring during the compac-tion process. Additionally, index unit weight andconcrete consistency tests were performed forcomparison purposes.

An RCC mix design currently used for a concretetechnology-based RCC research program was usedas the basis for designing all mixes used in thisprogram. Figure 1 illustrates the work accomplishedunder this testing program.

A 300-lbm/yd3 cementitious material (50% fly ashand 50% cement) RCC mix - without fines - wasused as the basis for designing all mixes; this originalmix design is shown in table 1. The result is acementitious materials content of 8.3 percent by drymass of soil (aggregate). Appendix A defines termsused in this report.

To evaluate the effect of adding low plasticity finesto RCC,mixes were designed with 10 and 20 percentfines (Bonny loess) by volume. The fines weresubstituted for an equal volume of sand in the mix.Figure B-1 shows the gradation of the 3 RCC mixes(containing 0, 10, and 20% fines). These mix designsstill contained 8.3 percent cementitious materials(50% fly ash and 50% cement) by dry mass of finesand aggregate.

Laboratory impact compaction tests were performedusing 4 energy levels (efforts) on RCC mixescontaining 0, 10, and 20 percent fines and onaggregate mixes containing 10 and 20 percent fines.Test specimens were compacted in 6-inch-diameterby 12-inch-high split steel molds using a 10.0-lbmsector-faced rammer dropped from a height of 18inches. The material was placed and compacted inthe mold in 6 lifts (layers) - in thicknesses ofapproximately 2 inches per compacted lift (layer).Maximum aggregate size was 1-% inches. The 4energy levels selected for testing were designatedas: USBR 27, 50, 80, and 122.

0 USBR 27 resulted in a compactive effort of 7.2ft-lbf/in3 (27 blows/lift) which is about the samecompactive effort applied using ASTM: D 698 [6].

0 USBR 50 resulted in a compactive effort of 13.3ft-lbf/in3 (50 blows/lift) which is about the samecompactive effort applied in TEX methodTex-113-E - the laboratory compaction pro-cedure used by the Texas State Department ofHighways and Public Transportation Materialsand Tests Division [7].

4

Cementitious material300 Ibm/yd3

8.3 % by dry massof aggregate

I

0% fines or10% fines (Bonny loess)

or20% fines (Bonny loess)

I

Mixdesign

II I I

Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory Laboratorycompaction - compaction - compaction - compaCtion-

aggregate aggregate aggregate aggregate(5-point) (5-point) (5-point) (5-point)

7.2 ft-lbf/in3 13.3 ft-lbf/ in3 21.2 ft-lbf/in3 32.4 ft-lbf/ in3(10%,20% fines) (10%,20% fines) (10%,20% fines) (10%,20% fines)

I I ILaboratory Laboratory Laboratory Laboratory

compaction - compaction - compaction - compaction -RCC RCC RCC aggregate

(5-point) (5-point) (5-point) (5-point)7.2 ft-lbf/in3 13.3 ft-lbf/ in3 21.2 ft-lbf/in3 32.4 ft-lbf/in3

(0%, 10%,20% fines) (0%, 10%,20% fines) (0%, 10%, 20% fines) (0%, 10%,20% fines)

I II

I I ICompressive strength Index unit weight and Durability tests

tests on RCC concrete consistency on RCCspecimens prepared tests on RCC specimens prepared

at maximum specimens prepared at maximumdry unit weight at optimum moisture dry unit weight

for each compactive content for each for each compactiveeffort compactive effort effort

I II I I I I I2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Specimens Specimens Specimens Specimens Specimens Wet-dry Freeze-thawtested at tested at tested at tested at tested at specimens specimens7 days 28 days 90 days 180 days 360 days tested tested

Figure 1.- The flow chart represents phase I of the research program.

5

Table 1.-0riginal roller-compacted concrete mix design -quantities per cubic yard.

Mix ingredients Size ofmaterial

Mass, Volume,Ibm ft3

Coarse aggregate,(SSD-saturatedsurface dry)

Sand (SSD)CementFly ashWaterWRA (water

reducingadmixture)

Total solid volume

No.4 to 3fsin3fsto % in%t01-%in

670910

1,100952150150164.5

4.115.556.695.770.761.072.64

354 mL26.59

Water-cementitious materials ratio equals 0.55

0 USBR 122 resulted in a compactive effort of 32.4ft-lbf/in3 (122 blows/lift) which is about thesame compactive effort applied in ASTM: D 1557[6].

0 USBR 80 resulted in a compactive effort of 21.2ft-lbf/in3 (80 blows/lift), and was selected as anintermediate energy level between energy levelsapplied by USBR 50 and 122.

The compactive efforts are summarized in table 2and on figure 2. The sequence of testing for eachmix is shown on figure 1.

Compaction testing was performed at each compac-tive effort for each mix, except for the aggregate mixcontaining O-percent fines.

The optimum moisture content and maximum dryunit weight of each mix were determined for eachcompactive effort.

Compressive strength and W-D and F-T durabilitytest specimens were compacted for each RCC mixat optimum moisture content and within :t 0.5percent of maximum dry unit weight for each energylevel.

Gradation tests were performed on the gravel portionof each RCC mix prior to mixing, and again aftercompaction and washing on the No.4 sieve, todetermine the percent of gravel breakdown due tocompaction. The RCC mix gradation tests wereperformed on specimens compacted at optimummoisture content for each energy level.

Index unit weight and concrete consistency testswere performed on each RCC mix prepared atoptimum moisture content for each energy level.

MATERIALS

Aggregate

Aggregate forthis study was obtained from two ClearCreek, Colorado, aggregate sources. Sample No. M-3864 was obtained from Brannan Sand and GravelCompany, pit No.1 0, located in Denver, Colorado;and sample No. M-7727 was obtained from MobilePre-Mix Crane Pit, located in Golden, Colorado. Theaggregate was processed by the manufacturers into4 sizes: sand, No.4 to %-inch gravel; %- to %-inchgravel; and %- to 1-%-inch gravel.

Most testing was performed using aggregate fromsample No. M-3864, except that the %- to 1-%-inchgravel portion of mixes containing 20 percent finescame from sample No. M-7727. Material fromsample No. M-7727 was used when material fromsample No. M-3864 was depleted. Coarse aggregate(gravel) from both sources was composed primarilyof granite and gneiss. Results of petrographicanalyses are included in appendix B.Aggregate fromsample No. M-7727 had slightly more fracturedsurfaces than that from sample No. M-3864;however, this should not have significantly affectedlaboratory test data. Specific gravity and absorptiontest results for each gravel size are summarized intable 3.

The sand, angular to subangular in shape, wascomposed of the same rock types as the gravel.Specific gravity and absorption of the sand were 2.64and 0.74 percent, respectively.

Fines (Bonny Loess)

To evaluate the effect of adding low plasticity finesto RCC, mixes containing 10 and 20 percent naturalfines (by volume) were prepared and tested. Bonnyloess, sample No. 23J-4 (obtained near BonnyReservoir in eastern Colorado) was used as finesfor this investigation program. Laboratory testing onthe Bonny loess to determine physical propertiesconsisted of:

. gradation analyses,. Atterberg limits,. specific gravity, and. laboratory compaction.

Tests were performed in accordance with proceduresdescribed in the Earth Manual [8]. Gradationanalyses, Atterberg limits, and specific gravity testswere performed on eight specimens from sampleNo. 23J-4 to determine variability of the material.

The material was laboratory classified as silty clay(CL-ML)and silt (ML), containing 15 to 24 percent

6

. . 2. .. G. B. ,.. 12. ...NUfoIIER OF BLOWS PER 2-INCH LIFT

I I I I I I I

120 240 360 480 600 720 840

Table 2.-Compactive effort summary - number of blows for 6-inch-diameterby 12-inch-high mold using a 10.0-lbm rammer and 18-inch drop.

Testdescription

Compactiveeffort

ft-Ibf ft-IbfIi13 ft3

Number of blows required to pro-vide specified compactive effort

Blows per Total number of2-in thick lift blows

ASTM: D 698*USBR 27USBR 50Tex-113-EUSBR 80USBR 122ASTM: D 1557t

7.27.2

13.313.321.232.432.6

12,37512,44222,98222,98236,63455,98756,250

27.127.050.050.180.0

122.0122.5

163162300301480732735

* ASTM: D 698, Standard Test Methods for Moisture-Density Relations of Soilsand Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 5.5-lb (2A9-kg) Rammer and 12-in (305-mm)Drop.t ASTM: D 1557, Standard Test Methods for Moisture-Density Relations of Soilsand Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-lbm (4.54-kg) Rammer and 18-in (457-mm) Drop.

..

"'c 30

~-..-~

20

...>E~ 10 ASTM~ DO 98

8 COMPACTI NTEST)

TOTAL NlH3ER OF BLOWS

Figure 2.-Compactive effort versus number of blows for6-inch-diameter by 12-inch-high mold, using a 10.0-lbmrammer and 18-inch drop.

sand. A summary plot of results of gradation testsperformed on the 8 specimens is shown on figureB2. Figure B3 is a gradation test plot showing theaverage gradation of the 8 specimens tested. TheLL (liquid limit) and PI (plasticity index) ranged from22 to 27 percent and 2 to 7 percent, respectively,with an average LL of 25 percent and an averagePI of 4 percent. Specific gravity of the material rangedfrom 2.60 to 2.65, with an average specific gravityof 2.63.

Based on results of physical properties tests, thematerial appeared quite uniform. Physical propertiestest results are summarized in table B 1, and onfigures B2 through B4. Values of PI versus LL areplotted on a plasticity chart shown on figure B4.

Table 3.-Summary of specific gravity and absorptiontest results for coarse aggregate.

Size ofmaterial,

inch

Bulk SSDspecificgravity

SampleNo.

Absorption,%

% to 1-Y2% to 1-V2%to%NO.4 to %

M-3864M-7727M-3864M-3864

2.632.632.642.63

0.720.750.891.07

A laboratory compaction test performed on aspecimen from the Bonny loess resulted in amaximum dry unit weight of 108 Ibf/ft3 at anoptimum moisture content of 14.8 percent. Compac-tion test results are summarized in table B1 and onfigure B5.

Results of a ch~mical analysis performed on aspecimen of Bonny loess indicated the presence ofless than 0.10 percent water soluble sulfate;therefore, type II cement was acceptable for use inthe RCC mixtures containing Bonny loess.

A petrographic analysis was performed on aspecimen of Bonny loess to determine mineralogicalcomposition and estimated volume percentages -with emphasis on clay minerals. The material wascomposed predominantlyof:

. quartz (45 to 50%),

. feldspar (10%),

. volcanic glass (10%),

. smectite (5 to 10%), and

. illite/mica (5 to 10%).

7

Appendix B has results of chemical and petrographica na lyses.

Cement

Type II low alkali cement (sample No. M-7120),manufactured by Ideal Basic Industries, Inc., locatedin Fort Collins, Colorado, was used in all RCC mixes.The cement had a specific gravity of 3.16.

Fly Ash

Class F fly ash (sample No. M-7489), from the R.D. Nixon Powerplant, located in Fountain, Colorado,was used in all RCC mixes. The supplier of the flyash was the Rocky Mountain Ash Company. The flyash had a specific gravity of 2.23.

Water Reducing Admixture

Protex PDA-25 WRA (water reducing admixture)agent was used in all RCC mixes.

Water

Denver tapwater was used throughout the testingprogram.

EQUIPMENT

Compactor

A Rainhart series model 662 automatic tamper wasused to compact test specimens. The Rainhartcompactor is designed to compact specimens 4 to6 inches in diameter and 6 inches high. The heightof rammer drop is adjustable from 12 to 18 inches.Standard 5.5-lbm round and 10.0-lbm sector-facedrammers are available for use with the compactor.

For this testing program, the material was compactedin 6-inch-diameter by 12-inch-high modifiedconcrete cylinder molds. The material was placedin the modified concrete cylinder molds in sixapproximately 2-inch-thick compacted lifts andcompacted with a designated number of blows perlift using a 10.0-lbm sector-faced rammer droppedfrom a height of 18 inches.

Several modifications were made to the compactorto accommodate the 12-inch-high molds. Themodified compactor is shown on figure 3. AppendixC shows details (including modifications) made tothe compactor and the 6- by 12-inch compactionmolds.

A new tamping rod was fabricated, moving the guidedisk (see fig. 4) approximately 3 inches toward thetamper head, to prevent the guide disk from strikingthe grabber during compaction of the upper lifts of

Figure 3.-Modified compactor used forroller-compacted concrete testingprogram. a) guide rod, b) grabber, c)guide disk, d) 10 Ibm sector-facedrammer, e) threaded adaptors, f) cleat,and g) baseplate. P801-D-81408

the specimen. The standard guide rods werelengthened to accommodate the lower path of theguide disk on the modified tamping rod. To obtainthe additional travel distance for the guide disk, thebottom ends of the rear and the two side guide rodswere cut perpendicular to the axis, drilled, andtapped; and 2-inch-long threaded short extensionrods were fabricated and inserted into the ends ofthe guide rods to provide the required additionallength. The front guide rod required a separatemodification because additional clearance wasrequired for installation and removal of the moldcollar which was used during compaction of the toplift of the specimen. A 2-inch length was cut fromthe standard front guide rod and the end of the rodwas drilled and tapped. A removable 4-inch-longthreaded extension rod was inserted into the frontguide rod. Figure 5 shows the 4-inch removablethreaded extension rod. Figure 6 shows all 4threaded extension rods.

8

Figure 4.-Modified tamping rod used during test. Theguide disk was moved approximately 3 inchestoward the tamper head to prevent the guide diskfrom striking the grabber during compaction ofthe upper lifts of the specimen. P801-D-81402

The standard baseplate on the compactor has threecleats for securing the mold to the baseplate. Duringinitial stages of testing, the mold moved throughoutcompaction of the upper lifts in the 12-inch-highmold. To stabilize the mold, an additional cleat wasadded to the baseplate.

Molds

The molds selected for compacting the test spec-imens were modified concrete test cylinder molds,known as "Coulee" molds. These molds were usedbecause of their rugged wrought steel designnecessary for retaining shape and calibrated volumeduring compaction.

Several modifications were required to convert theconcrete cylinder- molds into compaction moldssuitable for use with an automatic tamper. Becausethe locking lug system - for securing the bottomplate - would not rest evenly on the baseplate ofthe compactor, it was necessary to devise a newlocking system. The locking lugs were removed, andsix holes were drilled through the bottom plate andinto the mold. The holes in the mold were tappedand screws were used to secure the bottom plateto the mold. The holes in the bottom plate werecountersunk so the bottom plate would rest flushon the baseplate of the automatic tamper.

Figure 5.-View of the extension rod (4-inchthreaded adapter) used to lengthen thestandard front guide rod. P801-D-81403

Figure 6.-Extension rods fabricated to provide additional traveldistance for the guide disk. P801-D-81404

9

A mold centering guide was designed and fabricatedto aid in centering the test cylinder compaction moldson the baseplate (fig. 7). After placing the mold onthe baseplate, the mold centering guide was insertedinto the top of the mold so the centering guide couldbe visually centered between the compactor guiderods, thus centering the mold on the baseplate. Themold centering guide saved considerable time overthe previous trial-and-error method.

A collar was fabricated to aid compaction up to andslightly above the top of the compaction mold (fig.8). Variation in the outside diameter of the tops ofthe molds required that the top outside 1- V2 inchesof each mold be machined to specified tolerancesto fit the collar. Three bolts with wing nuts wereused to hold the collar in place during compaction.

A modified concrete test cylinder mold is shown onfigure 9. Figure 10 shows the modified concrete testcylinder compaction mold in comparison to thestandard soil-cement and Bureau of Reclamationcompaction molds.

The molds were calibrated using the water-fillingmethod in accordance with designation USBR 1009.2Because of the new mold design, use of 1- V2-inchaggregate, and high compactive efforts, frequentchecks were made to verify mold volumes.

Mixer

A Montgomery Ward and Co. model GIL-26471 Celectric mixer (3-114 ft3) was used for mixing the roller-compacted concrete.

TESTING PROGRAM

Batching

The mix design selected for testing was one currentlyused in the Bureau's Concrete and Structural Branchlaboratory for a concrete technology-based RCCresearch program. Adjustments were made to theRCC mix design so that mixes of aggregate only,and aggregate having selected percentages of fines(0, 10, and 20%) could be tested. The mixescontaining only aggregate and fines were computedby deleting cementitious materials and waterreducing admixture, while keeping the aggregate andfines in proportion to the original mix design. Whenfines were used in the RCC mix, computation forthe percentage of fines were based on the volumeof aggregate only. The fines replaced an equalvolume of sand in the mix. The sand in the RCC

Figure 7.-Mold centering guide aids in centeringcompaction mold on the baseplate. P-801 D-81405

mixture was adjusted to account for the sand portionof the Bonny loess. The percentage of water requiredin the RCC mixture was computed based on the drymass of the aggregate. fines. and cementitiousmaterials.

Batch sizes of 0.3 and 0.6 ft3 were used to providematerial for either one or two specimens, respec-tively, as desired. Three types of mixes were required:(1) aggregate and fines only, (2) aggregate andcementitious materials without fines (original mixdesign), and (3) aggregate and cementitious mate-rials with fines.

2 USBR 1009 Testing Procedure, Procedure for Calibrating

Compaction Molds, Bureau of Reclamation, Geotechnical Branch,Denver, Colorad.

10

Figure 8.-Collar aids compaction up to and slightly above thetop of the compaction mold. P801-D-81406

Figure 9.-Modified concrete test cylinder moldused for roller-compacted concrete compactiontests. P801-D-81407

Mixing

Mixes of Aggregate With and Without Fines.-Mixtures containing aggregate with or without fineswere mixed by hand in a large pan. The desiredquantity of water was sprinkled onto the materialsand thoroughly mixed by hand. When fines wereused, the moisture content of the fines wasdetermined and that amount of water subtractedfrom the total amount of water required. After waterwas added, the mixtures were covered and allowedto stand for 10 minutes before compaction -to aidin dispersion and absorption of the water .

Mixes of Aggregate and Cementitiou$ MaterialsWithout Fines.- The mixing sequence selected wasone currently used in the Bureau's concretelaboratory for RCC research. Each ingredient wasmeasured individually. The aggregate and about one-half of the mix water were placed in the mixer andmixed for 1 minute. After 1 minute, the cement andfly ash (which were blended by hand), the remainderof the mix water, and the WRA were added to themix; then the entire batch was mixed for 4 moreminutes. The complete batch was dumped into a

Bureau

standard

compaction

mold

Soil-cement

compactionmold

RCC

compactionmold

Figure 10.-Modified roller-compacted concrete test cylindercompaction mold in comparison to the standard soil-cementand Bureau compaction molds. P801-D-81408

11

Table 4. - Summary of laboratory compaction test results on mixes of aggregates and fines.

Fines Number of Compactive *Wet unit Maximum dry Ovendryoptimumcontent blows/lift effort weight unit weight moisture content

% ft-lbf/in3 Ibf/ft3 Ibf/ft3 %

10 27 7.2 150.9 142.6 5.850 13.3 150.8 142.8 5.680 21.2 151.8 144.2 5.3

122 32.4 153.2 146.0 4.9

20 27 7.2 147.0 138.3 6.450 13.3 149.0 140.0 6.480 21.2 148.8 140.9 5.6

122 32.4 149.7 142.6 5.0

large pan and remixed with a shovel and trowel tominimize segregation before the material was placedin the compaction mold.

Mixes of Aggregate and Cementitious MaterialsWith Fines.- The mixing sequence was essentiallythe same as mixing without fines, with a fewexceptions. The moisture content of the fines wasdetermined and that amount of water subtractedfrom the total amount of water required. The fineswere mixed with the cement and fly ash immediatelybefore putting them into the mixer. When fines wereused, some of the material would stick to the mixercausing segregation. To eliminate this problem,mixing was stopped after 2 minutes, and the insideof the mixer was scraped and the mixing continuedfor the remaining 2 minutes. The mixer drum wasscraped again after dumping the material into a largepan. The material was remixed with a shovel andtrowel to minimize segregation before placing intothe compaction mold.

When possible, 0.6-ft3 batches of materials weremixed so that two specimens could be prepared froma single batch. Using larger batches, considerabletime and labor were saved, and segregation appearedto be less. Careful planning was required to ensurethat two specimens could be compacted within the45-minute time limit specified between the additionof water to cement and completion of compaction.The mixtures were covered with damp towels aftermixing and during compaction to help maintain auniform moisture content and reduce the rate oftemperature gain. On warm days, it was necessaryto cool the mix water to reduce the rate oftemperature gain.

Laboratory Impact Compaction Tests on Aggre-gate Mixes With Fines.-Laboratory compaction testswere performed at the selected energy levels (efforts)on aggregate mixes containing 10 and 20 percentfines. The blend of materials used for each test

specimen met the gradation requirements for thespecified RCC mix design, excluding cement, fly ash,and WRA. The test specimens were compacted in6-inch-diameter by 12-inch-high split cylindricalsteel molds using a 10.0-lbm sector-faced rammer,dropped from a height of 18 inches.

Appendix E has a detailed description of thelaboratory impact compaction testing procedure.

Table 4 summarizes results of the compaction tests.

Figures 11 and 12 are summary plots of laboratorycompaction curves showing the effect of compactiveeffort on maximum dry unit weight and optimummoisture content for aggregate mixtures with finescontents of 10 and 20 percent, respectively.Individual compaction curves are shown on figuresD1 through D8. In some cases, the portion of thecompaction curve on the wet side of optimumbecame quite flat.

Laboratory Impact Compaction Tests on RCCMixes.-Laboratory compaction tests were performedat the selected energy levels (efforts) on RCC mixescontaining 0, 10, and 20 percent fines. The requiredquantities of aggregate and fines (when required),cement, fly ash, water, and WRA were batched andmixed based on the RCC mix design and desiredmoisture content. The quantity of water was adjustedbased on the absorption of the aggregate andmoisture content of the fines (when required). Thetest specimens were compacted in 6-inch-diameterby 12-inch-high split steel molds using a 10.0-lbmsector-faced rammer, dropped from a height of 18inches.

Figure 13 shows compaction of one RCC mix.

Because of cement hydration and large sample sizes,ovendry moisture content determinations providederratic results. Therefore, the design moisture

* Wet unit weight at maximum dry unit weight

12

..::,~

1-~~"'~

!::z:>

)-IrO

Figure 11.-Compaction curve of aggregate with 10 percentfines.

Figure 12.-Compaction curve of aggregate with 20 percentfines.

Appendix E has a detailed description of the

laboratory impact compaction testing procedure.

Results of the compaction tests on the RCC mixesare summarized in table 5.

Laboratory compaction data for the RCC mixes aresummarized in table D1 and on figures 14 through22. In some cases. the portion of curve on the wetside of optimum became quite flat.

Maximum dry unit weight decreased and optimummoisture content increased with addition of fines.

Figure 13.-View of roller-compacted concrete in a modified

concrete mold during compaction with a 10.0-lbm sector-faced rammer.

content (by dry batch mass) was used to calculatethe dry unit weight of each specimen. At least fivecompacted specimens were obtained, and the designmoisture contents versus corresponding dry unitweights were plotted. If the peak of the curve wasnot well defined, additional specimens wereprepared and compacted at appropriate moisturecontents.

.Figure 14 shows the relationship of maximumdry unit weight to number of blows per lift forthe three fines contents.

.Figure 15 shows the relationship of optimummoisture content to number of blows per lift forthe three fines contents.

.Figures 16 through 19 are summaries of com-paction curves for the RCC mixes showing effectof fines content on maximum dry unit weight andoptimum moisture content for each compactiveeffort. Maximum dry unit weight increased whileoptimum moisture content decreased with anincrease in compactive effort.

.Figures 20 through 22 are summaries of RCCcompaction curves for the RCC mixes showingthe effect of compactive effort on maximum dryunit weight and optimum moisture content foreach fines content.

13

Table 5. - Summaryof laboratorycompactiontest results on roller-compacted concrete mixes.

Fines Number of Compactive *Wet unit Maximum dry tOptimumcontent blows/lift effort weight unit weight moisture content

% ft-lbf/in3 Ibf/ft3 Ibf/ft3 %

0 27 7.2 151.6 143.4 5.850 13.3 152.6 145.2 5.180 21.2 153.4 146.5 4.7

122 32.4 153.6 146.8 4.6

10 27 7.2 149.4 139.8 6.950 13.3 150.6 141.8 6.280 21.2 149.8 142.7 5.0

122 32.4 151.1 144.6 4.5

20 27 7.2 146.0 136.3 7.150 13.3 146.7 137.9 6.480 21.2 147.3 139.0 6.0

122 32.4 148.6 141.3 5.2

* Wet unit weight at maximumdry unit weight.t Individual moisture contents from mix design - not ovendry.

150

-,~ 1450--~

"''"

. x. ,,'

.x . . - *0-§ 140

>-

'"0

...-

,.~ 135

...--LEGEND

x~,.

00% Finesx........LO% Fines

>-'"::? t30

;:

~

*---200/0 Fin"

1250 60 100 12020 8040

NUMBER OF BLOWS PER LI FT

Figure 14.-Roller-compacted concrete - maximum dry unitweight versus number of blows per lift.

.~ 6

s-~8

~.

- *

::!4

":;;<5,.

~ 2,.

~0

LEGEND

00% Fin..

X."...10% FinK

*---200/0 Fin..

00 100 12020 60 8040

NUMBER OF BLOWS pER LIFT

Figure 15.-Roller-compacted concrete - optimum moisturecontent versus number of blows per lift.

Individual compaction curves are shown on figuresD9 through D20.

Maximum dry unit weights and optimum moisturecontents were used as the basis for placementconditions of the compressive strength and durabilitytest specimens.

140

Compressive Strength

Mixes for the RCC compressive strength testspecimens were prepared at the optimum moisturecontent determined from the laboratory compactiontest. The 6-inch-diameter by 12-inch-high speci-mens were prepared in a similar manner as thelaboratory compaction test specimens, except eachlayer was rodded 25 times with a 5/8-inch-diametertamping rod to ensure that the material wasuniformly distributed along the sides of the mold.

'40

Specimens were compacted to within ::1:0.5 percentof maximum dry unit weight, as determined fromthe laboratory compaction test. Because of thecoarse aggregate, the top surface of each specimenwas usually rough after trimming. It was necessaryto apply a thin cover [using a 3: 1 (sand to cement)grout mix] to provide a relatively smooth, uniform,surface for the sulfur cap which was applied priorto compression testing.

Compacted specimens were cured in a fog room(100% humidity) at 73.4::1:3.0 OF for approximately16 hours prior to removal from the compactionmolds. After removal from the molds, the specimenswere placed in the fog room for the remainder ofthe specified curing period. Ten specimens wereprepared at each energy level and fines content so

14

'""-..,

....x<:>~ 140~....

z;;;)>-a:0

I~O

14~

13~

LEGEND00% Fin..

X100/0 Fin..

*200/0 Finl.

4 6 8130

2

CALCULATED MOISTURE CONTENT, percent

Figure 16.-Compaction curve for roller-compacted concrete(27 blows per lift - 0,10, and 20% fines).

'"-"-:c....:r~ 140.....~....z;;;)>-a:0

I~O

14~

13~

LEGEND000/0 Fines

X100/0 FinIS

*20% Fines

4 6 8130

2


Figure 17.-Compaction curve for roller-compacted concrete(50 blows per lift - 0. 1°. and 20% fines).

'"-"--..,....-:r

~ 140~....

z;;;)

>-a:0

10

I~O

14~

13~LEGEND

00% Fine.

X10% Fin..

*20% Fin..

1302 6 8 104


Figure 18.-Compaction curve for roller-compacted concrete(80 blows per lift - 0. 1°. and 20% fines).

'"-"-:c....-:r<:>

140~

....

z;;;)

>-a:0

10

I~O

14~

13~

LEGEND00% Fines

X10% Finis

*20°/0 Finn

1302 4 6 8 10


Figure 19.-Compaction curve for roller-compacted concrete(122 blows per lift - 0, 1°, and 20% fines).

15

LEGEND027 810ws per lift

X50 Biowl per lift

*80 810ws per 11ft

+122 810w. per 11ft

4 6

150

145

'".....-.c~:I:

'"kj 140~

~z::;)

>-<rc

8

135

1302


Figure 20.-Compaction curve for roller-compacted concrete(0% fines - 27, 50, 80, and 122 blows per lift).

150

145

'"......c

~:I:

'"L;j 140~

~z::;)

>-<rc

LEGEND027 Blows per 11ft

X50 BloWI plr II ft

*80 810w. per II ft

+122 Blows per 11ft

135

1302 6 84


Figure 21.-Compaction curve for roller-compacted concrete(10% fines - 27,50,80, and 122 blows per lift).

that two specimens each could be tested at 7, 28,90, 180, and 360 days after preparation.

Figure 23 shows a typical pair of compressivestrength test specimens ready for testing. The

.

150

145~-......c

~-:I:

'"kj 140~

~z::;)

>-<rc LEGEND

135 027 Blows plr 11ftX50 810WI plr Ii ft

*80 Blows per Iift+122 Blow' plr 11ft

10130

2 104 6 8


Figure 22.-Compaction curve for roller-compacted concrete,(20% fines - 27, 50, 80, and 122 blows per lift).

Figure 23.- Typical pair of roller-compacted concrete speci-mens prepared for compressive strength testing. P801-D-81410

10 test specimens were loaded in compression tofailure in accordance with the Concrete Manual,designation 33 Compressive Strength [9].Figure 24 shows an RCC specimen duringcompression testing.Figure 25 is a closeup of a specimen after failure.

.

.

Appendix E has a detailed description of thecompressive strength testing procedure used on theRCC specimens.

16

Results of tests performed on the two specimenswere averaged to provide an average compressivestrength. Average compressive strengths at 7, 28,90, 180, and 360 days after compaction aresummarized in table 6.

.Compressive strength test results are summar-ized in table 01 and on figures 26 through 39.

.Compressive strength of the RCC generallyincreased with increased compactive effort, asshown on figures 26 through 28.

.Compressive strength of RCC generallydecreased with addition of fines, as shown onfigures 29 through 33.

.Figures 34 through 36 show an increase incompressive strength with time for all RCC mixes.

.Figures 37 through 39 are plots showing averagecompressive strength versus water-cementitiousmaterials ratio for each fines content.

The 90-, 180-, and 360-day compressive strengthtest results were somewhat erratic. The specimenscompacted to the highest unit weights did notconsistently have the highest compressive strengths.This may be due to several factors such as aggregatebreakdown, variation in water-cementitious mate-rials ratio, and not enough cement paste to fill airvoids in the drier mixes (higher compactive efforts).

Durability Tests

The purpose of durability testing was to determineif modified soil-cement durability testing procedurescould be applied to RCC. Mixes for the durability testRCC specimens were prepared at optimum moisturecontent determined from the laboratory compactiontest.

Figure 24.-Roller-compacted concrete specimen duringcompressive strength test. P-801-D-81411

Six-inch-diameter by 12-inch-high cylindrical RCCspecimens were prepared in a similar manner asthe compaction and compressive strength testspecimens. The specimens were compacted towithin :t:O.5 percent of maximum dry unit weight,as determined from the laboratory compaction test.Four specimens were prepared at each fines contentand compactive effort so that two specimens couldbe used for W-D durability testing and two specimensfor F- T durability testing.

The specimens were cured in a fog room at 100percent humidity for 7 days. Following the curingperiod, the specimens were cut 5.77 inches longwith a masonry saw (see app. F for calculations).

Figure 40 shows a typical pair of durability testspecimens prepared for testing. The test specimenswere cut to this length to provide the samerelationship of maximum aggregate size to surface

Figure 25.-View of a roller-compacted concrete specimenfollowing compressive strength testing. The test specimen(28-days old) contained 20-percent fines and wascompacted with 80 blows per lift. P-801-D-81412

1-'

Table 6.- Summaryof averagecompressivestrengths - daysafter compaction.

Fines Number of Compactive Average compressive strength-lbf/in2content blows/lift effort 7-day 28-day 90-day 180-day 360-day

% ft-lbf/in3

0 27 7.2 815 1,495 3,025 3,525 4,13050 13.3 1,035 1,785 2,685 4,300 4,29080 21.2 1,400 1,980 3,245 3,830 4,600

122 32.4 1,555 2,160 3,330 4,150 4,275

10 27 7.2 690 1,165 2,555 3,110 3,27050 13.3 895 1,385 3,010 3,010 3,84580 21.2 1,070 1,605 2,925 2,850 3,680

122 32.4 1,260 1,870 2,635 3,460 3,480

20 27 7.2 470 1,015 1,890 2,300 2,69050 13.3 640 1,170 1,730 2,100 2,92080 21.2 705 1,210 1,935 2,175 2,885

122 32.4 985 1,475 2,305 2,520 2,990

5000

.------ -,

~ 4000.

_.,

I

*

r>-

"~~ 3000 LEGEND *'-.;..

0-~ ; ~~~~

E ~8~'_-~ 2000 ~o~s.

-0 18DOO1y.U J ---\oJ 360 Doy. I

.

"~

~ 1000>~

/'" -- -- ---y

..x

,.X'

00 100 12020 40 60 80

NUMBER OF BLOWS PER LIFT

Figure 26.-Roller-compacted concrete - average compressivestrength versus number of blows per lift (0% fines).

4400

/'-__-~ 3600 -. .r>-

"~~ 2800

~UJ LEGEND> o-

S ; ~~~'..

~ 2000 =~$--8 ~~.-

18000,.-

~ 1---4 360Days

~

1200

-=-===---== -.------ -

*

..,'X

'.

. .

4000 100 12060 8020 40


Figure 27 .-Roller-compacted concrete - average compressivestrength versus number of blows per lift (10% fines).

3600

;::

;. 2800~...

'">-'"

__1 1

...

"~

'"...>~

1LEGEND +

0-7 Do,.X

*-28DDJI

*---9000y'+---180Doys1---310011" X. . .' .'

"tC

-*-,...> 2000

Eif

"8 1200

*-

4000 20 40 8060 100 120 140


140 Figure 2B.-Roller-compacted concrete - average compressivestrength versus number of blows per lift (20% fines).

area as provided by current soil-cement durabilitytesting procedures.

W-D Durability Tests

The W-D durability test consisted of subjecting theRCC durability specimens to 12 cycles of wettingand drying. One cycle consisted of placing thespecimen in water at room temperature for 5 hoursfollowed by 42 hours in a drying oven at 160:J::5oF. The test specimens were brushed at the end ofeach cycle; the total mass of material removed wasdetermined and the percent mass loss wascalculated.

140

F- T Durability Tests

The F-T durability test consisted of subjecting theRCC durability specimens to 12 cycles of freezingand thawing. One cycle consisted of placing thespecimen in a freezing cabinet at -1 0 of for 24 hours,followed by 23 hours of thawing in a fog room (100%

18

1600

N.~- 1400

"..'"~II::;; 1200

...>

'"'"w 1000II:..Z0ug 800

:..

...~ 600II:...>..

4000

...............

..............

.......

.......

---

.......- .......

LEGEND

°-21' 810.' P~' lift)I. ....

50 8Jo., pu lift

*---80 810.' P~' hit

+ --122810.' ,.. IiII--........ --

10FI NE S CONTENT, plreut

...............

.......

------ ...............

..............

........

...............

.......

.......

Figure 29.-7-day compressive strength versus fines content.

~ 3100

~

~ ZiJOO

2200

10000

>;;

~ 2500

~

~ 2200

~~

"CII:~>c

3400

1900

16000

.......

.-'--~.t~

n

10

FINES CONTENT. percent

LEGEND

0-21'810'" P"

iiI!)I , ..~O 810'" pe' loft

*- --80BI0..,pe' loft

+

...............

...............

....... ~

.

' r--.1 I

i

FINES CONTENT. percent

........

........

-,,--"........

........

.......

-

, ~~ '-----


I.EGEND;

0

- t- - ~~. :o,"~ ,p~'. 1<:'..

- ./~,. --. -."'. :0--;0..:-:e'-;'t'-,

-~~ ;n~" ~2B"~'" ~

't '''.

-~

"'~

".--", .

~O810'"

p., hit

10


4800

LEGEND

~- 4100

%0-

"Z~

~ 3600

0

I 21810.' p" 1.11

~o 81010' p" lilt

------r

,

':- -- - -".~ 808tow,p.,I0'1

"'''''''''''''''' " +--~;--'--'~~ ~ 122BlowsPf'lilt

""

...............

-'-~.

'-~---

*-...............

':,;:

~ 2000%

0-

"~~ t800

~>~w 1600::z8.! 1400

N

..~ 1200II:..>..

~

..>~~ 3100

Z8~ 2600

~

=

2100

..>..

16000 10 20

20 FINES CONTENT, perclnt

Figure 32.-180-day compressive strength versus finescontent.

~~ LEGEND

t ..........

~ 4300~ ~.

":-""'"~ ~"> 3800

EII:..Z Ig 3300.cQ0~ 2800

..

'"s~ 2300

0

0

27810'"p., I,ft

~O BIO.' p,' 101'

*-----""

I S0810.'p" 1;11

"'"

I +--~.:.+-:- 122Slowsp" lof'l- .

,~~~~--.:...;,

+-.-----.-----I

10 20

FINES CONTENT, percent

20

Figure 33.-360-day compressive strength versus finescontent.

humidity) at 73.4:1:3.0 of. The test specimens werebrushed at the end of each cycle; the total massof material removed was determined and the percentmass 1055was calculated.

Figure 41 shows a durability test specimen duringbrushing.

Appendix E has two detailed descriptions of the RCCW-D and F-T testing procedures.

Results of the tests performed on the two specimenswere averaged to provide an average mass 1055.Average percent mass losses are summarized intable 7.

20

The RCC durability test results are summarized intable D1 and on figures 42 and 43.

19

5000

NC:::

:0 .000

%~

'"Z...a::;; 3000

...

>iii

"'...

f 200020u

...

'"..

: 1000>..

00 120 .8060

TIME. doy.

LEGEND027 Blo..

De'lift

X.........50 810.'

per litt

*------80 810wl per 18It

+-.-122 a..,P8' IIf'

240 300

Figure 34.-Roller-compacted concrete- average compressivestrength versus time (0% fines).

4400

c:s 3600..

%~

'"z...

~ 2800

"'...

>iii

"'...

f 2000

20u

...

'": 1200...

>..

4000 120 18060

11 ME Idoy.

":"

.-..-.

LEGENO

~7 810.1 per 11t1

x .. ...

~ Blow.per 11ft

*-- ---80 Blow. per 11ft

~2iim "' m't

240 300

Figure 35.-Roller-compacted concrete - average compressive

strength versus time (10% fines).

Figures 42 and 43 are plots showing durability mass

loss percentage versus number of blows per liftfor

each fines content.

As shown, test results were inconclusive indicating

that these durability tests may not be the most

appropriate for the coarse-grained material. The loss

of large pieces of aggregate during durability testing

caused inconsistent test results. Small mass losses

were recorded for all RCC durability test specimens.

including specimens from mixes having low com-

pressive strengths. Normally, soil-cement specimens

having low compressive strengths show highdurabilitymass losses; however, RCC durability test

3600N

C

....

..

%

~ 2800

z...a:~

,"'I~ 2000iii

"'...a:A.~U

:;...

LEGEND027 Blow'

peor IItt

...

'"..a:...>..

1 ..50 810w. per lift

:0-81;;, -P.;'" lIT,

+-.-IU 810.' per litt

4000 12060 '80

TIME, day.

240 300 360

360Figure 36.-Roller-compacted concrete - average compressive

strength versus time (20% fines).

results did not correlate well with compressive

strength test results.

Gravel Breakdown

Gradation analyses were performed on specimensof RCC compacted at each energy leveland finescontent to determine the percentage of coarseaggregate breakdown during the compactionprocess.

Coarse aggregate, for each compacted specimen,

was individually prepared and screened over theappropriate sieves for confirmation of the actual

gradation priorto mixing and compacting. Specimens

were prepared at the optimum moisture contents

determined for the compactive effort and fines

content and were mixed following the standard

mixing procedure.

360 Batches of 0.20 ft3 RCC were prepared to provide

just enough material to completely fill the compac-

tion mold, without excess material, so the entire

specimen would be used in the postcompaction

gradation test. Specimens were compacted at the

selected energy levels using the laboratory impact

compaction procedure. After compaction, the

specimens were immediately removed from the mold

and washed over a Standard No.4 sieve, as shown

on figure 44. Material retained on the No.4 sieve

was ovendried and rescreened over the appropriate

sieves. The percentage of coarse aggregate mass

loss for each sieve size and total coarse aggregate

mass loss were determined based on the initial

gradation of the material.

Results of gradation tests to determine percentage

of coarse aggregate breakdown caused by compac-

tion are summarized in table 8 and on figures 45and 46.

20

5000

4000

N~,; 3000

-£l-I:>Z...

'":;; 2000

...

~(I)(I)

...

'"II..

2 10000u

LEGEND07

- Do)'Itrenqth

X . . . . . . . . .

28-Doy Itr.nqth

*- - --90-00y .",,,,t,,

+-.-180-00y tt""4)th1__-360'Ooy '''In,lh

-I

~*'......

*-. . . . . . .

'X. . . . . . . . . . . . .X

00.4

BloWI per lift 122 80 27

0.65

50

0.550.45 0.5 0.6

WATER I CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS RATIO

Figure 37 .-Roller-compacted concrete - average compressivestrength versus water-cementitious materials ratio (0%fines).

5000

4000

N

""; 3000

-£l-I:>Z...

'":;; 2000

...>iii(I)...

'"~ 10000U

LEGEND07 -

Day Itrenqth

X.........28 -

Doy .trenqlh

*----90 ...Doy"r'''9th,

'

+-.-180 -

Doy ItrenQth1__-360-00)' Itrenqth

--' ..

"'-,.-+,

-'' " ,'*

X.. . ..

'X.. . . . .'X.. . . . . . . X

Blowsper lift:

0122

0.4 0.5

80 50

0.7

27

0.80.6


Figure 38.-Roller-compacted concrete - average compressivestrength versus water-cementitious materials ratio (10%fines).

Material compacted at all energy levels and finescontents showed some coarse aggregate breakdown.High percentages of coarse aggregate mass lossoccurred when 80 and 122 blows per lift were usedfor compaction. There was minimal increase incoarse aggregate mass loss between compaction at27 and 50 blows per lift. As expected, the highestpercentage of coarse aggregate mass loss occurred

5000LEGE D

4000

07 -

Day Itr.nqth

X........28

-Doy

"'1"9'

h

*- - --90 -

Ooy It"nq'h

+-.-N~,:Ii

180-00y"""9'"1__-

'".''1-'''

. -+-._+ '

-*,

'*"-

-£to 3000z...

'"I-(I)

I~-,

+

...

~ 2000(I)

...

'"II..20u

X,,"..'..

'.. . .

"

.X. .

1000

BloWI per lift 122 2780

0.7

5000.4 0.8 0.90.5 0.6


Figure 39.-Roller-compacted concrete - average compressivestrength versus water-cementitious materials ratio (20%fines).

in the largest coarse aggregate size (% to 1-1hinches), since there could not be breakdown of largerparticles to this size. Mass losses in %- to 1-1h-inchparticle size ranged from 4 to 27 percent (fig. 45).Test results indicated that total coarse aggregatemassloss(6to 17%)increasedwith compactive effortand decreased with increased fines and moisturecontent (fig. 46); however, there was significantincrease in coarse aggregate mass loss between 50and 80 blows per lift and minimal increase in coarseaggregate mass loss between 27 and 50 blows perlift.

As aggregate breaks down during compaction,fractured surfaces may not be coated with cementpaste and may reflect a decrease in compressivestrength and an increase in mass loss in thedurability tests. Figure 47 is a view of an RCCcompressive strength specimen following testing.

0.9

Index Unit Weight Tests

Aggregatemixonly.- Minimum and maximum indexunit weight tests were performed on the aggregatemixture containing O-percent fines. Both dry and wetmethods were used to obtain maximum index unitweight. Table9 summarizes the test results.

The tests were performed in accordance withprocedures described in the Earth Manual, Desig-nation E-12, Relative Density of Cohesion less Soils[8]. Figure 48 shows the vibrating table, mold, andsurcharge apparatus used for maximum index unitweight testing.

21

Table 7.-Summary of roller-compactedconcrete durability tests.

Fines Number ofcontent, blows per lift

%

Average mass loss%

W-D F- T

0 275080

122

0.4.4.4.4

0.6.4.2.3

10 275080

122

1.20.6

.6

.6

.3

.2

.4

.1

20 275080

122

.54.4,6

.6

1.0

1.4

0.9

Figure 40.-Typical pair of roller-compacted concrete speci-mens cut and sized for durability testing. P801-D-81413

-+-

::E .0~ -~I~I :,-- ---,

--, .-.

ao 100 120 140~

10

Figure 42.-Roller-compacted concrete -average wetdry durability test results (12 cycles of testing).

Figure 41.-Brushing of roller-compacted concrete durabilitytest specimen. P801-D-81414

Figure 43.-Roller-compacted concrete -average freeze

thaw durability test results (12 cycles of testing).

RCC mixes (aggregate, cementitious materials,and fines).-Minimum and maximum index unitweight tests were performed on dry RCC mixescontaining 0, 10, and 20 percent iines. These testswere performed in accordance with proceduresdescribed in Designation E-12 of the Earth Manual[8]. In addition, wet method maximum index unitweight tests (with modification to the testingprocedure) were performed on RCC mixes preparedat the approximate optimum moisture contents

determined for each compactive effort and finescontent. Because water could not be effectivelyadded to the mixes with cementitious materialsduring vibration in the mold, the mixes were preparedin advance at optimum moisture content.

Appendix E contains a detailed description of theindex unit weight testing procedures used in thisstudy. Table 10 summarizes results of the index unitweight tests. The index unit weight test results are

22

Concrete Consistency Tests

Concrete consistency tests were performed on RCCmixes prepared at the approximate optimummoisture content determined for each compactiveeffort and fines content.

A model Vebe vibratory table was not available forthis testing program, so a mechanically driven

vibratory ~able (with adjustable eccentrics) wasadjusted to accommodate the 9-inch-inside-diameter Vebe mold (fig.57). The frequency andamplitude of the vibratory table were calibrated tomatch that of a concrete Vebe table. A doubleamplitude of vibration of 0.020 inch at a 60-hertzfrequency was used for testing.

The specimen was prepared and placed in a mold,and the mold was secured to the table. A 50-lbm(0.7 Ibm/in2) surcharge was placed on top of thespecimen. The table was activated and the insideof the mold observed for formation of a "mortar ring."Figure 58 shows the "mortar ring." When the ringformed, vibration was stopped and vibration timerecorded. If, following 3 minutes of vibration, amortar ring had not formed, vibration was stopped,the time recorded, and the wet unit weightdetermined.

Figure 44.-Washing and screening roller-compacted concreteover a U.S. Standard No.4 sieve after compaction fordetermination of aggregate breakdown. P801-D-81415

summarized in table 02 and on figures 49 through56.

Plots showing wet and dry unit weights versuscalculated optimum moisture contents are shownon figures 49 and 50, respectively.

Appendix E has a detailed description of the concrete

consistency testing procedure.

Results of concrete consistency tests are summar-ized in table 11.Summary plots comparing wet and dry unit weights

determined from laboratory compaction, maximumindex unit weight, and concrete consistency testsare shown on figures 51 through 53 and on figures54 through 56. respectively.

Test results demonstrated that "mortar rings" wouldnot form for the drier mixes. With the addition offines. .'mortar rings'. would only form at the higherwater-cementitious materials ratios. Test results aresummarized in table 02.

Test results were erratic indicating that maximumindex unit weight tests may not be the mostappropriate for the RCC; however, further studyshould be given to developing a vibratory test foruse with RCC, as impact compaction breaks downthe coarse aggregate. The index unit weight methodof vibration is not adequate for mixes at approximateoptimum moisture content that are too dry to flow,and the cementitious materials restrict free move-ment of added water during vibration. Adding waterto improve flow conditions would significantlychange the properties of the RCC mixture. Themaximum index unit weights determined by the drymethod do not provide relevant data when cementand fly ash are present. RCC mixes containing 10or more percent fines plus cement and fly ashprobably contain too high a percentage of fines toprovide consistent and accurate data using a currentvibratory method.

.Plots showing wet and dry unit weights versuscalculated optimum moisture contents are shownon figures 59 and 60, respectively.

.Summary plots comparing wet and dry unitweights determined by laboratory compaction,index unit weight, and concrete consistency testsare shown on figures 51 through 53 and 54through 56, respectively.

Concrete consistency tests were performed using amechanically driven vibratory table having adjusta-ble eccentrics, instead of a concrete Vebe vibratorytable, thus possibly producing nonstandard concreteconsistency test results. The dry mixes (optimummoisture contents obtained from the laboratorycompaction test) did not appear to fully "consolidate"and did not form the required "mortar ring." Voids

23

Fines Number of *Percent gravel losscontent blows/lift % to 1 -112 %to% % inch Total

% inches inch to NO.4 gravel loss

0 27 9 6 12 950 12 7 6 980 22 4 8 12

122 23 17 9 17

10 27 8 4 14 850 10 4 9 880 18 10 18 15

122 27 7 4 15

20 27 4 6 9 650 5 11 10 880 15 2 4 8

122 17 9 6 11

* Percent gravel loss is defined as mass of gravel loss divided by the originalmass of gravel.

Table a.-Summary of gradation test results to determine aggregate breakdown.

'0

24

j

---1--

.'

....3~~ 18c~~1!~>-

.2

~..~..

LEGEND

0-0% f,nn

--TI ~

.: I '

., .

*

,.1 /

-L/-: ~

. I~O%':~;..

*- - - -20% FInes,

00 80 '00 12020 40 60


Figure 45.-Roller-compacted concrete % to ,-% inches gravelloss versus number of blows per lift (0, , 0, and 20% fines).

'8....9~

r4>-=-'-~ i . I~ I

00

1--LEGEND

0-0% Finn

100/0F'''fl

*- - - -20% Finn

100 1208020 40 60

NUMBER 01' BLOWS PER LIFT

Figure 46.-Roller-compacted concrete - total gravel lossversus number of blows per lift (0, , 0, and 20% fines).

were visible in the drier test specimens makingvolume determination by the water replacementmethod difficult and possibly inaccurate.

PERCENT COMPACTION BASED ONTHEORETICAL ZERO AIR VOID

UNIT WEIGHT

"0

Laboratory test data also were evaluated usingtraditional concrete theory. The theoretical zero airvoid unit weight (a wet unit weight) was calculatedfor each RCC mix design. Sample calculations areshown in appendix F. The wet unit weights atcorresponding maximum dry unit weights obtainedfrom the laboratory compaction procedure weredivided by the theoretical zero air void unit weightto provide a theoretical percent compaction. Inaddition, percent compaction data were computedfrom results of the maximum index unit weight andconcrete. consistency tests.

The theoretical percent compaction data aresummarized in table 12 and on figures 61 through63. Figures 61 through 63 are plots showing therelationship of wet unit weight at maximum dry unitweight obtained from the laboratory compaction testto the theoretical zero air void unit weight for RCCmixes prepared at each fines content.

"0Test results show that the highest theoretical percentcompaction occurred when 27 and 50 blows per liftwere applied to the compaction test specimens. Themaximum dry unit weights increased and optimum

24

Table 9. -Summary of index unit weight tests on aggregate.

Minimum

Fines index

content unit weight

% Ibf/ft3

Maximum indexunit weight

(dry method)Ibf/ftJ

Maximum indexunit weight

(wet method)Ibf/ft3

0 114.4 137.0 134.8

Figure 48.-Vibratory table. mold. and surcharge apparatusused for performing maximum index unit weight tests.P801-D-81417

Figure 47.-View of a roller-compacted concrete specimen

following compressive strength testing.

Table 10. -Summary of index unit weight tests on roller-compacted concrete mixes.

Finescontent

%

Calculatedoptimum Minimum Maximum index Maximum indexmoisture index unit unit weight unit weightcontent* weight (dry method) (wet method)f

% Ibf/ft3 Ibf/ft3 Ibf/ft3

0 275080

122

5.8

5.1

4.7

4.6

120.8 144.2 142.3

146.7

140.3

140.5

10 275080

122

6.9

6.2

5.0

4.5

120.1 143.9 145.7

145.0

131.9

126.3

20 275080

122

7.16.46.05.2

117.9 141.1 136.7128.7128.2115.7

* Maximum index unit weight tests performed on RCC mixes prepared at the

approximate optimum moisture contents determined from laboratory compactiontests.t Design optimum moisture content was used to calculate dry unit weight.

25

Numberof blowsper lift

-*" /

/ LEGEND

I °-0°/0 FinesX..........10 % Fines

*---20°/0 fines

4 5 6

.../

~8 1"40!i'" *- . . ...,xOJ

~!:: LEGEND

z °-::>130

Lob.compaction tesl

I- X......

'"Mo.. index unit WI.

~*- - -Consisl8ncytut

1;

1203 4 6 7 8

160

150

...",.x

...,

"I-

"'"~ 140~!::z::>

/

-'I-

'"~~ LEGEND

°-0 °/0 fines

X .100/0 Fil'lts

*----20010 Fines

130

/I

1203 5 64

CALCULATED OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT, percent

Figure 49.-Roller-compacted concrete maximum index unitweight tests - wet unit weight versus calculated moisturecontent (0, 10, and 20% fines). Moisture contents selectedfor relative density testing were the approximate optimummoisture contents determined from laboratory compactiontesting of RCC.

150

. . . . . . . x

140

...

,

",.:

"~ 130~!::z::>

>-It:0

120

1103


Figure 50.-Roller-compacted concrete maximum index unitweight tests - dry unit weight versus calculated moisturecontent (0, 10, and 20% fines). Moisture contents selectedfor relative density testing were the approximate optimummoisture contents determined from laboratory compactiontesting of RCC.

moisture contents decreased with increased com-pactive effort. However, at the higher compactiveefforts (80 and 122 blows/lift), the RCC mixes wereextremely dry, probably not forming enough cementpaste to fill all voids. This indicated that theoreticalpercent compaction may be lower even with higherunit weight values. At the highest fines content

160

...

,...

,.:

"~ 150~!::z:>I-

'"~

LEGEND*Y:

°-Lob. compaction testx.x' x..........

MOa. indu unit wI.

*--Conli"e"c~ test

1403 4 5 6 7 8

CALCULATED OPTIMUM MDISTURE CONTENT, percent

Figure 51.-Roller-compacted concrete laboratory compaction,maximum index unit weight, and concrete consistency tests

- wet unit weight versus calculated moisture content (0%fines). Moisture contents selected for testing were theapproximate optimum moisture contents determined fromlaboratory compaction testing of RCC.

8160

...

:; . . . . . ..,x

1-- 150

"!;!'"~!::z::>

~ 140~

- -/

,{

LEGENO

Lab. CO"'POClion ItSl

X..........Mo..index unit wi.

*- -"

(OftIillft'l(J test

1303 5 6 84


Figure 52.-Roller-compacted concrete laboratory compaction,maximum index unit weight, and concrete consistency tests- wet unit weight versus calculated moisture content (10%fines). Moisture contents selected for testing were theapproximate optimum moisture contents determined fromlaboratory compaction testing of RCC.

150



- wet unit weight versus calculated moisture content (20%fines). Moisture contents selected for testing were theapproximate optimum moisture contents determined fromlaboratory compaction testing of RCC.

26

150

~

LEGEND,::t!:! 140...~~Z::>

x. .0

Lob. comoaclion telt

x............Mol.. index unit .,

*--->-ex:0

Consislency tnt

1303 4 5 6 7

CALCULATED OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT, percont

Figure 54.-Roller-compacted concrete laboratory compaction,maximum index unit weight, and concrete consistency tests- dry unit weight versus calculated moisture content (0%fines). Moisture contents selected for testing were theapproximate optimum moisture contents determined fromlaboratory compaction testing of RCC.

150

. . . . . It..:::~ 140,::t..

- -:-'- -oJ/.

...~

!:z::> 130..ex:0

LEGEND0

Lob. compoct ion tnt

x .Mol.. in.. unit wi.

x' *- --Consistency test

1203 4 6

CALCULATED OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT, percont


- dry unit weight versus calculated moisture content (10%fines). Moisture contents selected for testing were theapproximate optimum moisture contents determined fromlaboratory compaction testing of RCC.

(20%), the wet unit weight at the maximum dry unitweight showed a substantially lower theoreticalpercent compaction for mixes prepared at allmoisture contents than those prepared at lower finescontents.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Further effort should be concentrated on compactingspecimens in a standard 6.0-inch-diameter by 4.6-inch-high mold. This mold is currently used in ASTM:D 558, Standard Test Methods for Moisture-DensityRelations of Soil-Cement Mixtures [6]. The mold wassuccessfully used in an RCC bonding study per-formed by Tayabji and Okamoto [5].

Additional compressive strength tests should beperformed and unit weight comparisons made onsets of specimens compacted at moisture contentsslightly wet and dry of optimum moisture contentto determine if the laboratory compaction test truly

150

140

8

"2-~~,::t..;;; 130~ . . . . It'

*-

!:z::>>-ex:0

LEGEND0

Lob. Coftlpo(lion test

120x... . . . . . . . .Mol. indft unit wi

*--x. Consistenc, tnt

1103 7 84 6

CALCULATED OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT, porcont

Figure 56.-Roller-compacted concrete laboratory compaction,maximum index unit weight, and concrete consistency tests- dry unit weight versus calculated moisture content (20%fines). Moisture contents selected for testing were theapproximate optimum moisture contents determined fromlaboratory compaction testing of RCC.

8

defines the optimum mix design for RCC based onconcrete theory.

Standard concrete Vebe (consistency) tests shouldbe performed on RCC mix designs used in this testing.program to determine if the mechanically drivenvibratory table with adjustable eccentrics providesthe same test results as the Vebe vibratory table.A Vebe vibratory table is now available in theBureau's Concrete and Structural Branch laboratory.

A vibratory (consolidation) test should be developedfor mix design and construction control of coarse-grained material as impact compaction breaks downthe coarse particles thus changing the properties ofthe RCC. A vibratory test would better simulate fieldplacement procedures and would not break downthe coarse particles. This is extremely important forsoil-cement research, as soil-cement with gravel andvibratory compaction are becoming common practicein the Bureau of Reclamation; and currently,standards have not been developed for testingcoarse-grained material. The Bureau's Concrete andStructural Branch has developed a laboratoryvibratory compaction (consolidation) apparatus; mixdesigns - used in phase 1 of the multi phaseresearch program - should be used to evaluate theeffectiveness of the laboratory vibratory compactionapparatus for both RCC and soil-cement with gravel.

Further comparisons should be made betweenmaximum dry unit weight and theoretical percentcompaction of the maximum air-free wet unit weight(at zero air voids), since it is not possible to determinethe actual moisture content of the mix.

27

Figure 58.-"Mortar ring" formed during roller-compactedconcrete consistency test. P801-D-81419

Figure 57.-Mechanically driven vibratory table havingadjustable ecce!1trics modified to perform concreteconsistency tests. P801-D-81418

Table 11.-5ummary of concrete consistency tests.

Approximatetime of

consistencytest

s

Finescontent

%

Calculated Wateroptimum cementitious Wet Drymoisture materials unit unitcontent* ratio weight weight

% Ibf/ft3 Ibf/ft3

0 275080

122

5.8

5.1

4.7

4.6

0.64.56.51.50

154.0 145.7153.2 145.8151.5 144.7151.7 145.0

60

180t

180t

180t

10 275080

122

6.96.25.04.5

.79

.69

.56

.49

150.9 141.3151.3 142.7150.1 143.0144.1 137.9

3060

180t180t

20 275080

122

7.16.46.05.2

.84

.76

.70

.59

147.7 137.9145.7 136.8145.7 137.5143.1 136.0

30

180t

180t

180t

* Concrete consistency tests performed on RCC mixes prepared at the approximate

optimum moisture contents determined from RCC laboratory compaction tests.t Mortar ring did not form; vibration was stopped and time recorded.

28

Numberof blows

per lift

LEGENOI0-0 % Fines

X. .. .. . ..10% Finu

./ *- - - --"V 20°/0 Fines

". X

x:~/' - *'"*.......-

Table 12. - Summary of theoretical percent compaction test data. *

Number Laboratory compaction Maximum index unit weight Concrete consistencyof blows Calculated Theoretical Wet unit Wet unit

Fines per lift optimum zero air weight at Theoretical weight from Theoretical Wet Theoreticalcon- applied by moisture Free void wet maximum dry percent max. index percent unit percenttent compaction content moisture unit weight unit weight compaction unit weight compaction weight compaction

% test % Ibm/yd3 Ibflft3 Ibflft3 % (wet method) % Ibflft3 %Ibflft3

0 27 5.8 196.1 152.3 151.7 99.6 150.4 98.8 154.0 10150 5.1 168.8 153.8 152.6 99.2 154.2 100 153.2 99.680 4.7 153.2 154.7 153.4 99.2 146.9 95.0 151.5 97.9

122 4.6 149.3 154.9 153.6 99.2 147.0 94.9 151.7 97.9

10 27 6.9 241.8 150.0 149.4 99.6 155.6 104 150.9 10150 6.2 214.5 151.3 150.6 99.5 153.7 102 151.3 10080 5.0 167.6 153.8 149.8 97.4 138.5 90.0 150.1 97.6

122 4.5 148.1 154.9 151.1 97.5 132.0 85.2 144.1 93.0

20 27 7.1 252.4 149.3 146.0 97.8 146.4 98.1 147.7 98.950 6.4 225.0 150.7 146.7 97.3 137.1 91.0 145.7 96.780 6.0 209.4 151.5 147.3 97.2 135.9 89.7 145.7 96.2

122 5.2 178.2 153.2 148.6 97.0 121.7 79.4 143.1 93.4

* Theoretical percent compaction is defined as the wet unit weight obtained by the laboratory test divided by the theoretical zero air void unit weight.

155 .50

*

I-:z:..iii

"!:z::>..II:Q

140

.....

~ ISO,.::z:..iii

"I-Z::> 145

. . . . . . .X~~ 145

- ~LEGENDI-...

"

./ °-0010 Fines.( x...........10°/0 Fin"

*---20°/0Fines.40

3 4 5 6 7

CALCULATED OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT, por.tnt

8135

3 4 5 6 7 8

CALCULATED OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT. por.tnt

Figure 59.-Roller-compacted concrete consistency tests - wetunit weight versus calculated moisture content (0. 10. and20% fines). Moisture contents selected for testing werethe approximate optimum moisture contents determinedfrom laboratory compaction testing of RCC.

Figure 60.-Roller-compacted concrete consistency test - dryunit weight versus calculated moisture content (0. 10. and20% fines). Moisture contents selected for testing werethe approximate optimum moisture contents determinedfrom laboratory compaction testing of RCC.

29

160 ISO 240 260

FREE MOISTURE CONTENT, Ibm

I I 51, ~.84.1 4.7

1/ Tt'teoreticol zero air void wet unit weight

J

XI ""'0X X X

~Wet unit weight at maximum dry unitweight rrom loborotlory compaction test

~

:: 160

.0

l-I

'"~ 150~

I-Z::>

~ 140~ 140

Theoretical zero air void wet unit weight

200150 190160 170

FREE MOISTURE CONTENT, Ibm

I4.1

I4.7 ~I I5.S

Figure 61.-Wet unit weight versus moisture content (0% fines).

CALCULATED OPT! MUM MOISTURE CONTENT, pe«e"'

=160

.0,.:I

'"~ /50~I-Z::>

I-LIJ /40~ 140

Theoretical zero air void wet unit weight

unit weight



:: 160.0

l-I

'"~ 150~

I-Z::>

~ 140~ 140 160 ISO 220200 240 260

FREE MOiSTuRE CONTENT, Ibm

I4.1 I4.7 51, Js



30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] Reeves, Gary N., and Lewis B. Yates; KennethD. Hansen, editor, Roller Compacted Concrete,In: Proceedings of the Symposium sponsored bythe Colorado Section and Construction Divisionof the American Society of Civil Engineers inconjunction with the ASCE Convention in Denver,Colorado, May 1-2, 1985.

[2] Murphy, H.W., "Highway Construction inQueensland," Concrete International, vol. 9, No.2, American Concrete Institute, pp. 42-48,February 1987.

[3] Schrader, Ernest; James Paxton, and V. Ramak-rishnan, "Composite Concrete Pavements withRoller-Compacted Concrete," TransportationResearch Record, No.1 003, TransportationR'esearch Board, pp. 50-56, 1984.

[4] Mindness, Sidney, and J. Francis Young,Concrete, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey, 1981.

[5] Tayabji, Shiraz D., and Paul A. Okamoto,Bonding of Successive Layers of Poller-Compacted Concrete, final report to U.S. Depart-ment of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc.,Skokie, Illinois, March 1977.

[6] 1987 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, sec. 4,Construction, vol. 04.08, "Soil and Rock; Buildings.tones," American Society for Testing andMaterials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1987.

[7] "Determination of Moisture-Density Relationsof Soils and Bases Materials," Test Method Tex-113-E, State Department of Highways and PublicTransportation, Materials and Tests Division,Austin, Texas, December 1982.

[8] Earth Manual, 2d ed., Bureau of Reclamation,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,D.C., reprint 1980.

[9] Concrete Manual, 8th ed., Bureau of Reclama-tion, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washing-ton, D.C., reprint 1981.

31

APPENDIX A

Terminology

33

TERMINOLOGY

Abbreviations following the definitions are used to refer to the sourceof the definition:

ASTM - American Society for Testing and MaterialsACI - American Concrete Institute

Absorbed Moisture

Water held mechanically in a soil or rock mass and having physical propertiesnot substantially different from ordinary water at the same temperatureand pressure (ASTM).

Absorption

The process by which a liquid is drawn into and tends to fill permeablepores in a porous solid body; also the increase in weight [mass] of aporous solid body resulting from the penetration of a liquid into itspermeable pores (ACI).

Aggregate

Granular material, such as sand, gravel, crushed stone, and iron blast-furnace slag, used with a cementing medium to form a hydraulic-cementconcrete or mortar (ACI).

Air Void

A space in cement paste, mortar, or concrete filled with air; an entrappedair void is characteristically 1 mmor more in size and irregular inshape; an entrained air void is typically between 10 and 1,000 ~m indiameter and spherical or nearly so (ACI).

Batching

Weighing [determining the mass] or volumetrically measuring and intro-ducing into the mixer the ingredients for a batch of concrete or mortar(ACI).

Batch Weights (Masst

The weights [mass] of the various materials (cement, water, the severalsizes of aggregate, and admixtures if used) of which a batch of concreteis composed (ACI).

Calculated Moisture Content

The moisture content of the RCC (roller-compacted concrete) mix as calcu-lated using batch masses (not an ovendried moisture content).

35

Cap (Sulfur Cap)

A smooth plane surface of suitable material [sulfur] bonded to the bearingsurfaces of test specimens to ensure uniform distribution of load duringstrength testing (ACI).

Compaction Curve

A curve showing the relationship between dry unit weight and moisturecontent of RCCfor a given compactive effort.

Compaction Test

A laboratory compacting procedure whereby a soil at a known moisturecontent is placed in a specified manner into a mold of given dimensions,subjected to a compactive effort of controlled magnitude, and the resultingdry unit weight determined. The procedure is repeated for various moisturecontents sufficient to establish a relation between moisture contentand dry unit weight (similar to ASTM).

Compressive Strength

The load per unit area at which an unconfined cylindrical specimen ofsoil or rock will fail in a simple compression test. Commonly, thefailure load is the maximumthat the specimen can withstand in the test(ASTM).

Consistency

The relative mobility or ability of freshly mixed concrete or mortar toflow; the usual measurements are slump for concrete, flow for mortar orgrout, and penetration resistance for neat cement paste (ACI).

Fines

Portion of soil finer than a No. 200 (75 ~m) U.S. Standard sieve (ASTM).

Fly Ash

The finely divided residue resulting from the combustion of ground orpowdered coal and which is transported from the firebox through theboiler by flue gases (ACI).

Free Moisture

Moisture having essentially the properties of pure water in bulk; moisturenot absorbed by aggregate (ACI).

36

Gravel

Particles of rock that will pass a 3-inch (75 mm) U.S. Standard sieveand be retained on a No.4 (4.75 mm) U.S. Standard sieve.

Grout

A mixture of cementitious material and water, with or without aggregate,proportioned to produce a pourable consistency without segregation ofthe constituents; also a mixture of other composition but of similarconsistency (ACI).

Heat of Hydration

Heat evolved by chemical ,reactions with water, such as that evolvedduring the setting and hardening of portland cement. The differencebetween the heat of solution of dry cement and that of partially hydratedcement (ACI).

Hydration

Formation of a compound by the combining of water with some other substance;in concrete, the chemical reaction between hydraulic cement and water(ACI).

Loess

A uniform aeolian deposit of silty material having an open structureand relatively high cohesion due to cementation of clay or calcareousmaterial at grain contacts (ASTM).

MaximumUnit Weight

The dry unit weight defined by the peak of a compaction curve.

Mortar

A mixture of cement paste and fine aggregate; in fresh concrete, thematerial occupying the interstices among particles of coarse aggregate;in masonry construction, mortar may contain masonry cement, or may containhydraulic cement with lime (and possibly other admixtures) to affordgreater plasticity and workability than are attainable with. standardhydraulic cement mortar (ACI).

Optimum Moisture Content

The moisture content defined by the peak of a compaction curve.

37

Paste Content

Proportional volume of cement paste in concrete, mortar, or the like,expressed as volume percent of the entire mixture (ACI).

Theoretical Percent Compaction

The wet unit weight obtained from the laboratory test divided by thetheoretical zero air void wet unit weight and multiplied by 100 tochange to percent.

Portland Cement

A hydraulic cement produced by pulverizing clinker consisting ~ssentiallyof hydraulic calcium silicates, and usually containing one or more ofthe forms of calcium sulfate as an interground addition (ACI).

Pozzolan

A siliceous or siliceous and aluminous material, which in itself possesseslittle or no cementitious value, that will, in finely divided form andin the presence of moisture, chemically react with calcium hydroxideat ordinary temperatures to form compounds possessing cementitious properties(ACI).

Relative Density

The ratio of (1) the difference between the void ratio of a cohesionlesssoil in the loosest state and any given void ratio'to (2) the differencebetween its void ratios in the loosest and in the densest states (ASTM).

~(Moisture) Content

Ratio of the mass of water to the total dry mass of a roller-compactedconcrete mixture, expressed as a percentage.

~(Roller-Compacted Concretet

A mixture of portland cement (including fly ash), 3/4-inch or largeraggregate, and water; compacted by rolling. The aggregate used is generallyof controlled grading to produce more uniform concrete properties.

Sand

Particles of rock that will pass the No.4 (4.75 mm) U.S. Standard sieveand be retained on the No. 200 (75 ~m) U.S. Standard sieve (similarto ASTM).

~(Saturated Surface Dry)

Condition of an aggregate particle when the permeable voids are filledwith water and no water is on the exposed surfaces.

38

Slump

A measure of consistency of freshly mixed concrete, mortar, or stuccoequal to the subsidence measured to the nearest 1/4 inch (6 mm) of themolded specimen immediately after removal of the slump cone (ACI).

r

Soil-Cement

A mixture of soil, portland cement, and water that (as the cement hydrates)forms a material with higher strength than the untreated soil. Dependingon the amount of water used, it can be placed as a compacted material,as a mortar, or as a slurry.

Temperature Rise

The increase of temperature caused by absorption of heat or internalgeneration of heat, as by hydration of cement in concrete (ACI).

Theoretical Zero Air Void Unit Weight

Maximumwet unit weight that can be obtained for an RCCmix design,assuming all voids are filled with cement paste.

Vibration

Energetic agitation of freshly mixed concrete during placement by mechanicaldevices either pneumatic or electric, that create vibratory impulsesof moderately high frequency that assist in consolidating the concretein the form or mold (ACI).

Water-Cement [Cementitious Materials] Ratio

The ratio of the amount of water, exclusive only of that absorbed bythe aggregates, to the amount of cement [cementitious materials] ina concrete or mortar mixture; preferably stated as a decimal by weight[mass] (ACI).

WRA(Water Reducing Agent)

A material which either increases slump of freshly mixed mortar or concretewithout increasing water [moisture] content or maintains workabilitywith a reduced amount of water [moisture], the effect being due to factorsother than air entrainment (ACI).

39

APPENDIX B

Roller-Compacted Concrete Materials and Test Data

41

IDENTIFICATION PARTICLE-SIZE FRACTIONS CONSISTENCYSPECIFIC GRA VITY

(V)COMPACTION TEST

IN PERCEI'IT LIMITS ......

If-

~PLUSNO."

'+-' W~.Q 0::III: ..J E

~J'r- :::> .,....

0 111 111 I I-........

... 10 E~ E E"'--

If-10 ::E E ..oE ~E ...E 111 )( I- VI .Q::E 0: .... ~E ~:I: """111 Z>- Z ... E;:~ ~~... 1/1 r-;:) ... ;

'" ~~.., "'... Q ~.... § t.!' 0, 0,Z IO .! 0'" ~~I- 0 I- ""'~ ::IE:I- ~WN::E z :z: ....o.N ~?i ..J z We... 0 I- E 0 E ;;~ ... z- ..J~ Z

'"Z ~E ::E~

~UE..J ;:)~] j: ",E I- E .- --

i..J >- ... ... .,....3u ~~,~0.. Z ~.... 0 I- ~'"

...I'"

I- X '::,...:g "'.... ..,' ;:)1-::E ~0... z?i z QU

~;:) ;:) ~IL ~I- a. ~~&Ut-':<;z IL U ..Jo 00 '0

r?i 10 IL 0:... ~z

~F

"'''';:)

'"::IE:

"'"~z",~

'"W ii: ...I' 00 O:z j: ... 0Q <0 ...I a ?i ::E z: :Lu ...;;:;:==: ;;:;

'" ~'" 0........... ::E~~>

...1 ~0: 10 :::> 0'" '"

0 ...1 :z: ~'"u ~0'" >-W ..J ...

3J-4 a.. u 0::VI 0

A ~-15--__no

-- ---_._- f--.-2...~

-- -~--_.- ------

----- -.---- ---"- -..6L _19. 22.- _.2- ----

~l--

-.------- ---- f----

B CL-ML 10 73 17---... -- ---.- -----

_.._-.. ---- ----- f--- 2_5- __L

.--- 2...60.. -----.--- f---

-- --_. -- --- -'---_'_n_- I--- --.. ----_._- ..-.--- ---- ----- -----.- --- - - ---

C CL-ML 10 .1.4n.. J§-- _2't- ....4_- 2....!..6J..----'-- --.- ------ -- ----- --"'-'- .'--'--- ......--

---- ---.- ------ .-----_.. .---- .--.-- --. ..--- f--_.?.6i

----.- 1-----f-. D

- ----- - CL.-:r-1l.. _J11.. _I'L _.l6....- ..'----.-- --- f-----

_.21... _.1... _un- ...--.. ---.- -.--- .--

1-- E ---- --- -- .."'--- ---- --- c--?..6..4

--.-- -- ----'- ------ ---.- --------- .~

-.------"--!;.L - f11--_tL _B_- 15--

_._m--.---- - ----

..2..6_- .- .5_- ----_. -- -----.- _n'__"- --_.-- -~.- ------ ~-- ----

F -'- -.- f----- .--- -- --- ---- .---- -"----- --- .-.------ --.. ------- -- -.-.-

f--- ---- -------_.ML 10_- B.- _16_.-

--- -- f-'-- _2.L- ..L- --- 2.&3- ----- -.. -.'--'. --.. -.-- ..------------ -----.- n__- - .-

G f'1':MI--- ---- f--' --.- -- ----.-- -- -- -.- -._- _..-

f---' 1.8 S8 24..- ---. _2.4_- -A - .-------"" 2...6.4 --.--- -.--.- --..- -.-"-- -- -----------.------ '-_.-- ---

~--- --- --.- --- ..-- --' ---_. _._--

-- --- .-..-H CL-ML l.L .19_- ----- ---- ---

25__ ..5 - 2~. ---~-- -.--..-- ------- .. -.-.

-..--- ---- -- -.----Lia~~

-- ---'- ----- ---- --- - -"-- ------- '-..-" .---- r-'- ---- --- -AVERAGE j~.L..:-_f1L. -12--- .LO__- --.-.-- --- -.- .25...- r--4...- ?~63. -- --- ---- r--- -. .'-

----- ---- --- --_.---.. ----.- -_.---- --- -----.- -----_.- 1----....- -.----_._- -- -----.- ----- ...-.--...-IOR- --- - .--- "--'--I - -- --.---.-. "--- f-- -- ----- f-n_- ------ -- --.-.-- ---.- --------- '---'-'.------ --'-- _.--- -

14.8 2.20.0.. ----.-- -.-- 1----- ------- ----- ---.--. .----. -.-...-- .-- ----- -..------.--. -----_.-- ------- -.-"-- --.-- f------ -.--

--..- --- -- -- f--_. -- -- "'--'-- ----- c----- ---- -..-- ----- -- f--- ----- f--..- ----- ---

__n_-----

.j::I.eN

7.1784 (8.71)Bureau of Reclamation

PROJECT Roller-Compacted Concrete Research Material Bonny Loess

NOTE: Numbers in parentheses are metric equivalents of numbers directly above.GPO 838 - tD8

Table B1.-Summary of physical properties test results - laboratory compaction.

98

88

18

CIzH 68enena::Q.

58~z1&1U 48D:1&1Q.

38

.j::o. 28.j::o.

18

\

\ I I

\ I I\ I I

\ I I

\ I I\ I I\

\ I I\ I I

\ .\. I I

\. I I\. I I

". .

~J _.~ I

"'" ~-~ ~I""" "'-... -- i---1 """" ......'

I ~.....31.5 19 9.5 4.15 2.36 1.18 .6.425.3 .15 .815 .831 .819 .889 .88!S .882

2I I I I III I I I I I III I I I I III I I I I .. I I I I I I I

58 Ie 5 1 8.5 8.1 8.85 e.81 e.- e.881DIAMETER OF" PARTICLE IN MILLII'£T£ftS

~I IRGJI

F'lNEB-- F'l1£ --- I MEDILJt I F'l1£

18

28

38Q1&1

48 zHa::ti

58 D:

~is88 U

D:1&1Q.

18

88

98

NOTES.

LEGEND0x- - - - -. .-

GRADATION TESTSIEVE ANALYSIS

U.S.STfIGJRRD SIEVE OPENING I U.S.STfIGJRRD SIEVE .....3. 1 1/2. 3"4. 3"'. H .. .18 .16 .38 H8"8 .188

188

HYDROMETER ANALYSISTIME READINGS 1hr- 25hr-

1.ln 4.ln 19.1n 8"ln 15.ln 45.ln8

IN88

815

188.881

0% fines10% fines20% fines

Figure B1.-Gradation test of aggregate for soil-cement research with 0,10, and 20 percent fines.

~;;0

fTI~90

:n;;0fTIt:J

S0OJ-<

~:->70

l!JZ1-1(f) S0(f)a:Q.

I- 50zwu

~40W

("')Q.

IfTI 30("')

"fTIt:J

.,::. 20C11 OJ

-<

10

r.:::-

10

20

30QWZ

40 1-1a:I-W

~50I-ZW

S0U~WQ.

70

S0

90

SAMPLE HOLE ELEV. OR UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION 1 ATTERBERG LIMITS SPECIFIC GRAVITY

NO. NO. DEPTH MOUP % % % LIQUID PI~AJl*C(IJl SHRINK~~E MINUS NOTES:S MBOL GAAVEL SAND FINES LIMIT (%) LIMIT % NO.4 OTHER

-!:~GEND______--- ---23J-4A Ml'" -- ~-' 22 C C, ,.

0 --_._~-23J-4B LL -ML 17 c;~ ~"4 2,& J ..----...--x---- ---.- -23J-4C 'r L-ML Ih "':~ 24 ~--- 2.b

-~------_._---* ------- .

23J-4U (L -ML II,., ,~ ':J7 7 2.6 ------------+ ------ - --23J-4E CL-ML 15' ~5' '1 ~2. ~-------.----1--------23J-4F N\L 16 ~4- ,..:r 4 2 '\~

--_.__.._-~-..._.__._-

2- -~..- -23J-4G L-MI 1:>4 76 ~~2.0"'1

-.--.----------3- -.23J-4H if'o_L-ML t'i 81 ::>.)

";2, ,., 4 . . . .

I ~b-. .~~I

r ~-~"..

I I ,l\I I \\1 1 \\I I

\,I 1 .~

\\~I

I ~\~I I .\~

\.,~I I "'-'~.

.~,,'-I I ~~::-----;I I

~~II


U.S.STANDRRD SIEVE OPENINGI

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS

3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/S" +4 +S +10 +IS +a0 +40+50 +100100

HYDROMETER ANALYSISTII£ READINGS 7hr- 25hr-

lmln 4min 19m1n S0mln 15mln 45mln0

100.001

I0.001

I

+200

075 .075 .009 .005 .0029.5 4.75 2.3S 1.IS

2I II II I I I

1 0.5DIAMETER Or PARTICLE

I COARSE II£DIuMSAND I

.15 .037 .01937.5 19 .S .425 .3III I I I I

0.1 0.05IN MILLIMETERS

F"INE I

I I I I50 "

II I I I10 5

III I I I I0.01 0.005

F"INESGRAVjLCOARSE FINE

Figure B2.-Gradation test.

98

88

18

CIZH 88enena:D.. 58t-zIaJU ..8~IaJD..

~0)38

28

18

18

28

38

CIIaJ

48 zHa:t-IaJ

58~t-ZIaJ

88 U~IaJD..

18

88

98

31.5 19 9.5 4.15 2.38 1.18 .8 .425.3 .15 .815 .831 .819 .889 .885 .8822

I I I I 11111 I I I III I I I I III I I I I II I I I I I I58 111 5 1 8.5 8.1 8.85 8.81 8.885 8..11

DIAMETER O~ PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS~IBm

I

F'INES.....-- ttEDILI! I

SfI'PLE ION NOTES.NO.

'"SYt1IIOL fINES LEGEND233'-4 CL-tI.. 82 0

.~..........

I I """";'-

I I "I I~I

I \I I \I I \. .

\I I \I I \. \I I~I

I \I I \I I \I I "'"

I I~.~I II I


U.S.STANDARII SIEVE OPENING I U.S.STANDARII SIEVE NI.J'tBER838 1 11"28 3"","8 3""8

".. .18 .18 .38 "8e8 .188

188

HYDROMETER ANALYSISUtE READINGS 1hr- 25hr-

1.'" ...," 19.'" 8"'" 15.'" 45.'"8

188.881

I.288

815

Figure B3.-Gradation of Bonny loess for soil-cement research - average of eight tests.

X 40w0z

~>- 30" ~-

0-I- 20(f)

<t.....J

a..

I I I I ---- I, I I /COMPARING SOILS AT EQUAL LIQUID LIMIT /

Toughness and dry strength increase/

~with increasing plasticity index. ~~/'/-- ""," '\>-...,..

//

.....

~-- CH /..,-/

~/

-- /," O,H/

/ or-.....~ --

CLClf OL: MH

~,6 If "p / or~//A./0'j ~~ML~L-ML/ /r/ "/

ML - 8.- -F

'A

1-1461(2 - 58)BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

BONNY LOESS (Sample No. 23J-4)

60

50

1074

00 2010 30 40 50 60

LIQUID LIMIT

70 80 90 100

Figure B4.-Plasticity chart for laboratory classificationof fine-grained soils.

e

"\\

\\

C",,,

"4

&0

1'\,\\

/'\' 0...,1) .\\

\ ~.,I/A<... A ,\\

~'-~~\~

1<91/

.' f'x 1\'~/" ."

V \~~r¥' \ 4 \.~\ \ .~\ \'

\ '\ ,""

","'~", ~/

l--

)g'

7-1414 (8-70)Bureau of

Reclamation COMPACTION. PENETRATION RESISTANCE CURVES.2600

z:......552200..............a:I-11800LLIUz:

~ 1400II).....II)

~ 1000

Z8 600

~t:i 200z:~ 05 10

M>I$TUR(5pERCENT OF DRy24MASS25

/00

10 15 -.2.0MOISTURE PERCENT OF DRY MASS

25

1/5

.t:.::;)u~a:I 110-II-:J:(!:I.....LLI:3

I-;;105::;)

>-a:0

955

Figure B5.-Compaction - penetration resistance curves.

48

ACTING Chief., Applied Sciences Branch

Ir --Ir--- -------I

Denver, Colo[adO-- - - - - - -

June~-191S-- ----I1----------,r-- - ------I -Petrograpb1.cEz_fnAtionof Clear creek Aagregate -Denver Off1c:jr- --- - ---

u. S. Bureau of Iec1a1lat1on I1-----------I,------------IL ---

INFORMATIONAL ROUTING

MemorandumChief, Concrete ar.d Structural Branch

Petrographic .'r_fntJtion by: B. F. Monk

Petrographic referral code: 75-27

SamplG No. .3864

J.1ater1al: Plant proeeased sand a1Id gravel

Soarce: Plant proeessed sand and coarse aggregate from Brannan Sand andGravel (Dapa11Y, Clear Creek, pit No. 10, located at 63rd andBryant Street, DeDYer, Colorado.

Conclusions

Gravel and sand comparable to laboratory sample No. M-3864 are petrograph-ieally of satisfactory phy~ica1 and chemical quaty if used as an aggregate:111 c.oucra~..

Trace amounts of potentially alkali reacti~e chert and cryptocrystalU.neqtiartz particles vere observed 1D the Ro. 4, No. 30. and 1D the fiDeend (minus Ro. 30) sieve SUe8.

Stllllllary

The gravel, rounded to angular in ahape with about 5.6 percent flatteDed~ elongated particles, is eoIIIpOsed mainly of g1"anitic9 with lesser8mO<UJ1tSof metamorphic. and Idnor .cmounts of pegmatite, schists. sandstone,altered volc.n1cs, quart: and feldspar. The ..terlal is physic:a11y sotmdADd contains only trace amounts of potentially reactive chert particles intlu.\ No.4 sieve size.

Th~ sand II angular to aubangular in shape, is caaposed of the same rocl:types found in the gravel plus increasing 8IIIOU1\ts of monomineralic grdns

49

of quartz, feldspar, Idea, amp1d.bol.., epidote, 1II88Detite, Barnet, traceamount of cbart. ad . f- aillce11ueou8 detrita11d.neral. in the fiDel'she.. The 8&Dd1.8 pby.icaU)' eouud aDd contaiu OD1.ytrace aount8 offot81'1ti&U)' alkali-react in chert.

C?~~Enc108Ul'U

Cop)' to: UU (B. I. Dicu,) 21511 (0. R. Venal')2301520

/1523

50

: 75.0..2.4

: 0.2. 10.8.1.20.5

:

4.5

..0.5

4.40.5

:

Table I

PETROGRAPHICEX~NATION OF COARSE AGGREGATE

Sample No. M-3864

Rock types Description of rock typesPhynca!quality

:percenta~artlC!e count3/4 inch 3/8 inch

: Hard, compact, dense, fine to medium grained, pink:Satisfactory:

to gray colored ::: Somewhat softened, fractured, slightly weathered :Fair: Deeply weathered, crumbly, highly absorptive :Poor: Hard, compact, dense, fine to medium grained, :Satisfactory:

to dark gray, streaked ::: Somewhat softened, .slightly weathered :Fair: Deeply weathered, crumbly, highly absorptive :Poor: Hard, compact, dense, very coarse grained :Satisfactary:: Hard, compact, dense, fine grained, mica~ceous, :Satisfactory:

amphibolitic, sillimanitic, dark gray to black:: Somewhat softened, slightly weathered :Fair: Hard, compact, dense, angular to subrounded fine :Satisfactory:

to medium quartz grains, white colored :

Altered volcanics; : Hard, compact, dense, slightly altered, porphyritieSatisfactory:includes rhyolites: to massive, white to 1igh~gray to black- : :

andesites, andesitiebasalts and basalts: Somewhat softened, moderately weathered

Quartz : Hard, dense, compact, crystalline, clear totranslucent, rounded to angular

: Hard, dense, compact, dense, crystalline,

angular to subrounded, white to pink colored

Granites, includes afew quartzmonzonites

Gneisses, includes afew gneissicgranites

Pegmatite

Schists

C1I..... Sandstone

Feldspar

....

:Fair

:Satisfactory :.:Satisfactory:..

: ..

~a::.:: ..eactive rock t)-pe5.

53.7

13.01.7

12.1

1.7

6.51.3

0.91.3

3.5

1.3

3.0

:

..

..

Table 2

S~~RY OF nUALITY OF COARSE Ar.r.REr.ATESample No. M-3864

:Percenta~c by "article count: 3/4 inch 3/8 inch.I

:Satisfactory:Physical:

quality:Pair.. 81.4

16.91.7

.. 95.24.10.7

..

..:Poor ....

..:Alkali-

Chemical: reactivequality:

..0.0 .. 0.0.. ....(See No. ~ size particles under remar~s)

Remarks:

Particle shape: - The gravel particles vary from rounded to angular in

shape. About 50 percent. of the particles are stream worn and rounded tosubrounded in shape. The remainder of the particles shows signs of being

crushed and exhibit both rounded stream worn surfaces and broken angular

surfaces or having all angular surfaces. Flattened and elongated particles

in the coarse aggregate vary from 5.2 percent in the 3/4-inch size to

6.0 percent in the 3/S-inch size.

Coatings and/or encrustations: None observed

No.4 size: - Essentially same rock and mineral types as found in the

3/4- and 3/8-inch sizes, but becoming more monomineralic. The particleshape is chiefly angular to subangu1ar with about 10 percent rounded to

subrounded particles. The physical quality is good. A few particles of

black, grays, and brown chert were observed (less than 1 percent).

52

Tahle 3

PF.Trtor.RAPllrc EXA~'r~ATtON OF COARSF. SA.\JD

Sample ~o.M-3864

Rock and mineral typosIlercenta~e by

: particle count:No. 8:~o. lfi:So. SO

Granites, includes some quartz monzonitesMetamorphics; includes schists and gneissesAltered volcanics; includes rhyolites,

andesites, andesitic basalts and basaltsQuartz (pebbles and vein quartz)Feldspar (clear, white, and pink)Micas (muscovite and biotite)SillimaniteEpidoteMagnetiteGarnetChert (includes some cryptocrystalline

quartz)

:67.4 : 66.4 : 33.2: 7.2 : 3.7 : 1.5

: 6.8 : 2.7 : 1.8:12.4 : 17.2 : 44.9: 5. 7 : 7.2 : 15.9: - : 0.7 : 0.8: 0.3 : 1.7 : 1.5: 0.2 : 0.2 : --: - 0.2: 0.1: -- : 0.1

. --. : 0.2

..

...... ..

..

Percent unsoundPercent alkali reactive .. -

.. -- 0.80.2

0.7 :

Remarks: The coarse sand (+ No. 30 sieve size) is angular to subangularin shape and contains about 5.4 percent elongated and flattened particles.The fine sand (-No. 30 sieve size) is angular in shape, contains about

3 percent flattened and elongated particles, and contains decreasing

amounts of the fine grained rock types found in the coarse sand with

increasing amounts of monomineralic grains of quartz, feldspar, micas,

amphiboles, epidote, magnetite, garnet, sillimanite, and a few miscellaneous

detrital minerals. The pan size (less than No. 100 sieve size) contained

trace amounts of gold.

.,.

The fine sand contains about 2-3APhysically unsound particles and onlytrace amounts of potentially reactive chert and cryptocrystalline quartz.

53

The material removed by washing (about 1 percent by weight) consisted

of trace amounts of organic (woody) material and silt containing quartz,feldspar, garnet, amphiboles, magnetite, zircon, apatite, micas, pyrite,

and a few miscellaneous minerals. No opal, chert, or cryptocrystallinequartz was detected microscopically in iridex of refraction immersion

oils.

The fine material removed by washing contained no carbonates, traceamounts of chlorides, sulfates, and acid soluble iron oxides. A minor

amount of illitic-type clay was observed by clay staining tests.

54

-- .--_....lUILY'."a 801.-GS".- C'.',.,."..UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Memorandumoro

f.1emorandum: Head, Soil ~1echanics Section

Denver, ColoradoDAn; October 4, 1985

PROM : Head, Chemistry, Petrography, and Chemical Engineering Section

SUBJF.~7:Petrographic Examination of Bonny Dam Loess for Use in Roller CompactedConcrete - Soil-Cement Research - DR-~OO

Examined by: G. J. Sheldon


ItHRODUCTION

(No. 23J-4)A sample identified as Bonny Dam Loess (No. 23J-2) was submitted forT. Casi as, Soil f1echani cs Secti on, to the Petrographi c Laboratory forexamination. The purpose of the examination was to determine themineralogical composition and estimated volume percentages, ~ithemphasis on clay minerals, and to determine the water-soluble sulfatecontent by chemical tests for use in roller compacted concretelaboratory research studies.

PETROGP~PHIC EXAMINATION

The sample was examined megascopically, microscopically, by X-raydiffraction analyses, and by a few qualitative physical and chemicaltests.

The submitted sample consisted of chiefly unconsolidated silt-to clay-size grains with a few soft, highly absorptive, poorly consolidatedpeds to about 3.5 cm in diameter; was yellowish gray to grayish orangeand highly effervescent with dilute hydrochloric acid; and containednumerous dried wood and grass fragments.

The nineralogical composition and estimated volume percentages arelisted on the attached table 1. The examined sample contained about5 to 10 percent mixed-layer smectite, 5 to 10 percent illite/mica,and 2 to 3 percent kaolinite.

.., U.S.S"';"&Is..u LP/-7 .. 1MP.wJ S..." PI........

55

Tests performed in the Chemistry Laboratory by B. Frost indicate thepresence of less than 0.10 percent water-soluble sulfate in the examinedsample.

V:f,

Attachment

Copy to: 0-2300-84280-15110-152380-15410-15420-16000-3300

(Casias)

56

Table 1. - Mineralogical composition and estimatedvolume percentages - Sample No. 23J-2 - Bonny Dam

Loess - Soil~Cement Research - DR-400

Minera logy Percentages

QuartzClay minerals

Mixed-layer smectite 1/Illite/mica 2/ -Kaolinite -

FeldsparVolcanic glassCalciteDolomiteAmphiboleMinor 1/

45-50

5-105-102-3101052-32-35

1/ Includes minor calcium montmorillonite.2/ Chiefly illite with minor biotite.3/ Includes chlorite, hematite, magnetite,

ilmenite (?), apatite, and unidentifiedaccessory and clay-size minerals.

57

.-- -. ...lUL'f...,~ CD''''''C"" "I. C..' ,.1.1 I..

UNITED 5TAT~ GOVERNMENT

Memorandumoro

Memorandum.: Head, Concrete Section

Denver... ColoradoDAT8~nuary 6, 1986

FROM: Head, Chemistry, Petrography, and Chemical Engineering Section

SUBJF..l..:Petrographic Examination of Clear Creek Aggregate - Denver Office -U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Examined by: C. A. Bechtold


Material: Processed gravel and sand

Source:

Sample No. Location

M-7726 Brannan's Pit No. 10, at 63 and Bryant Street,Westminster, Colorado

M-7727 Mobile Pre-Mix crane pit one-half mile west ofMcIntyre Street on 44th Avenue,Golden, Colorado

CONCLUSIONS

Sample No. M-7726

The examined gravel is petrographically of fair physical quality, ifused as concrete aggregate, due to the presence of about 1 percentphysically poor and 37 percent physically fair quality primarily graniteparticles.

The gravel contains about 15 percent flat and/or elongated particleswhich are not considered deleterious to the physical quality ofconcrete.

No coated particles were observed in the examined sample.

The examined sand is petrographically of satisfactory physical quality,if used as concrete aggregate, due to the presence of only about3 percent physically poor quality particles in the coarse sand.

The examined gravel and sand are not considered potentially dele-teriously reactive with high alkali cement due to the presence of only

Ibout 1 percent potentially alkali-reactive chert particles in both the

examined gravel and coarse sand.

s." U.S. Sm"t.1 s.Js Lt."'''''' M fINP"7"'/1 S"";"&IPI-I.

58

Qualitative chemical tests indicate the absence of water-solublechloride and sulfate ions in the examined sand.

Sa~ple No. M-7727

The examined gravel and sand are petrographically of satisfactoryphysical quality, if used as concrete aggregate, due to the presence ofonly about 4 percent physically poor and 26 percent physically fairquality primarily granite particles in the gravel and only about4 percent physically poor quality particles in the coarse sand.

The gravel contains about 15 percent flat and/or elongated particleswhich are not considered deleterious to the physical quality ofconcrete.

No coated particles were observed in the examined sample.

The examined gravel and sand are not considered potentially deleter-iously reactive with high alkali cement due to the absence of alkali-reactive rock types in the examined gravel and the presence of less than1 percent potentially alkali-reactive chert particles in the examinedcoarse sand.

Qualitative chemical tests indicate the absence of water-solublechloride and sulfate ions in the examined sand.

SUMMARY

Sample No. M-7726

The gravel, primarily subangular to angular in shape with about15 percent flat and/or elongated and no coated particles, is composedprimarily of granite and gneiss with lesser amounts of pegmatite,altered volcanics, schist, vein quartz, quartzose sandstone, basalt,epidote rock, and chert. About 1 percent physically unsound material and1 percent potentially alkali-reactive chert particles are present.

The sand, subrounded to angular in shape, is composed of decreasingamounts of rock types found in the gravel and increasing amounts ofmonomineralic grains of quartz, feldspar, amphibole, sillimanite, mica,chlorite, garnet, sphene, zircon, and magnetite with a few miscellaneousdetrital minerals in the finer sizes. About 3 percent physically unsoundmaterial and 1 percent potentially alkali-reactive chert particles arepresent in the coarse sand.

Sample No. M-7727

The gravel, primarily subangular to angular in shape with about15 percent flat and/or elongated and no coated particles, is composedprimarily of granite and gneiss with lesser amounts of pegmatite,

59

altered volcanics, schist, vein quartz, quartzose sandstone, basalt,and epidote rock. About 4 percent physically unsound material and nopotentially alkali-reactive rock types are present.

The sand, subrounded to angular in shape, is co~posed of decreasingamounts of the rock types found in the gravel and increasing amounts ofmonomineralic grains of quartz, feldspar, amphibole, sillimanite, mica,chlorite, garnet, sphene, zircon, and nagnetite with a few miscellaneousdetrital minerals in the finer sizes. About 4 percent physicallyunsound material and less than 1 percent potentially alkali-reactivechert particles are present in the coarse sand.

v:[.~Attachments

Copy to: 0-84280-152380-1542 (Terry Casias)(with attachments to each)

60

Table I. - Petrographic Examination of Coarse AggregateSamples No. M-7726 and M-7727

Rock types Description of rock types

Physical

quality

M-7726Percentage by particle count

37.5 10m to 19 mm 19 10m to 9.5 mm

M-7727Percentage by particle count

37.5 mm to 19 10m 19 10m to 9.5 10m

45.0 45.0Granite Hard; dense; structureless;

fine to medium grained;pink to gray; Includes few

quartz monzonites

Somewhat softened and weathered;

some fracturedSoft; porous; absorptive; friable

Satisfactory

Fair

Poor

35.0 38.0

21.0 18.025.0 27.0

2.0 2.00.5 1.0

Gneiss 17.0

(J)......

Hard; dense; gneissic; fine to

medium grained; gray;

chiefly granite gneissSOllluwh.. t ,0<,f tonod "nd WUI' thorod;

some fractured

Soft; porous; dbsorptlve; friable

Sat Isfactory

F..lr

Poor

19.0 14.0 11.0

6.0 3.06.0 8.0

2.0 0.5

Pegmatite 1.0Hard; dense; structureless;

coarse grained; pink or white;Includes few quartz grains

Somewhat softened and weathered;

some fractured

Satisfactory

Fair

2.0 1.0 1.0

1.0 1.01.0 0.5

Altered volcanics 2.0Hard; dense; porphyritic;

altered aphanitic groundmass;gray; Includes rhyolite and

andesiteSomewhat softened and weathered;

some fractured

Satisfactory

Fair

2.0 0.5 3.0

0.5

Schist 4.0Hard; dense; schistose; medium to

fine grained; Includes mica,

amphibolite, and sillimanite

schistSomewhat softened and weathered;

Some fracturedSoft; porous; absorptive; friable

Satisfactory

Fair

Poor

0.5

2.0 1.0

1.0 0.5

3.0

0.5 1.0

1.0 3.0

0.5 0.5

1.0 2.0

1.0

2.0

0.5 0.5

.-

0.5

0.5 1.0

0.5

Tabll3 1.- Petrographic Examination of Coarse Agg-egateSamples No. 1+-7726 and 1+-7727 - Cont Inued

Rock types Description of rock types

0.5 1.0Vein quartz Hard; dense; coarse graIned;white on pInk; clear

Somewhat softened and weathered;some fractured

Phys Icalquail ty

1+7726PercenTage DY pa~T IC Ie counT

37.5 mmto 19 mm 19 mmto 9.5 mm

SatIsfactory

FaIr

Quartzose sand~tono Hard; dense; structureless;fine to medium grained;whl°te to black; sill ca cemented


0)N

Sat Is factory

FaIr

Basalt Sat Is factoryHard; dense; structureless;some vesicular; fine grained;black

Somewhat softenoo and wellthered;soml3 fr actured

Soft; porous; absorptIve; frlc!ble

FaIr

Poor

1+7727~eroenTage oy parTICle counT

37.5 mmto 19 mm 19 mm to 9.5 mm

1.0 2.0

0.5

1.0 1.0

0.5

0.5

EpIdote rock 1.0Hard; dense; structureless;medium graIned; green


Sat Is factory

Fair

Chert .. SatIsfactoryHard; dense; structureless;chaloedonlc; white, red, orblack


FaIr

0.5

.. Alkali-reactive rock types.

Table 2. - Summaryof qual i ty of coarse aggregateSamples No. M-7726 and M-7727

M-7726 M-7727

Percentage by particle count37.5 mmto 19 mm 19 mmto 9.5 mm

Percentage by particle count:!7.5 mmto 19 mm 19 mmto 9. 5iiiiii

Physical qual i ty Sati sfactory

Fair

64.5

35.0

60.5

38.5

66.0

29.5

74.0

23.5

mCN

Poor 0.5 1.0 4.5 2.5

Chemical quality Alkal i reactive 0.5 1.5

Remarks:

The particles are essentially subangular to angular with about 15 percent flat and/or elongated in shape.

No coated particles were observed.

The 4.75-mm-size material appears lithologically. physically. and chemically similar to the 19-mm to9.5-mm-size fraction.

Table 3. - Petrographic exami~ation of coarse sandSamples No. M-7726 and M-7727

M-7726 M-7727Rock and mineral types Percentage by Percentage by

particl e count particle count2.36 mm 1.18 mm 600 ~m 2.36 mm 1.18 mm 600

~Granite 60 55 29 55 50 41

Gneiss - chiefly granite gneiss 13 4 28 11 10

Altered volcanics - includesrhyolite and andesite 3 4 1 5 8 2

Schist - includes mica, amphibo-lite, and sillimanite schist 2 1 1 1 1

Vein quartz and quartz grains 13 25 58 3 14 35

Quartzose sandstone 3 1 1 Trace

Basalt 2 Trace 1 2 1

Epidote grains 1

Chert 1 1 Trace Trace 1

Fel dspar grai ns 3 8 9 5 12 8

Mica flakes Trace Trace Trace

Amphibole grains 1 2 1 1 2

Percent unsound-Percent alkali reactivePercent flat and/or elongatedPercent coated

41

13

31**

1Trace

**

5Trace

11

41**

**

2

* Not determi ned

Remarks: The coarse sands are subrounded to angular in shape.

The fine sands are angular in shape and composed of decreasing amounts of the rock types foundin the coarse sand and increasing amounts of monomineralic grains of quartz, feldspar, amphi-bole, sillimanite, mica, chlorite, garnet, sphene, zircon, and magnetite with a few miscella-neous detrital minerals. The fine sands contain about 1 percent physically unsound materialand a trace of potentially alkali-reactive chert particles.

The material removed by washing, about 4 percent, by weight, in both samples consists ofquartz, mica, feldspar, a few miscellaneous detrital minerals, and a trace of carbonaceousmaterial.

Qualitative chemical tests indicate the absence of water-soluble chloride and sulfate ions inthe examined sands.

64

APPENDIX C

Mold and Compactor Modifications Drawing

65

IIIIIIIIIIrIIII,

AI'~:m-..J

TOIIU"O,O.-"IO~::='tllOttCllMlOdcrllpart I Collar

I

:'0;)

.=J

_:X_~-/,j

!

.Rec~eddimensionsh_~8r 1'tIeymGJ,or,dtpendintontlHlrGd!lends

TEST CYLINDER MOLD

'''liTA

('10',2"-0-12101

~....

f.- . .

~'.f.'.

J. MEMBER AC ,

. I.

'",,"

~ 'Ol'Drill'"011l860" . .

for I-Userew, . j"R

::o::~h~::""I" MEMBER B.

flot head scn.s

---1yf##//////1//////////~

.

Yo_" A.B.&C. .

.

I 1.850' I~ ~:S:.:; ~;~j~:~~Ym~l~t~~ ~tht enclosun rod w,Hciowthl moldcorrectty.

¥' ;\

''''.otP!.'~

&'"I

--.

II

II

/,/

/

---

.~ oWl

cL

MEMBER C

-fNf All thread rod for

ottaclunvtomper .e'qllttoto",perlltod

~.~,0 I.~ 10'

.-tOO'Dili.

'-OIO'Diar

BASE PLAT E FOR MOLD...IITC

COLD 1I0lL[0 STUl

°"(11[0'11

COLLARPUT I

sun fue.",.ON[.[O'O

EXTENSION ROD

"""TIESU'''lUSST[[1.011[11[0'0

T~'

BOLT,AIITf'

SU."'ll[S$Sn£L

NOTEParts ".1 .. ~ aVQllable from tilt RII1nhort Co PO.801 4533

Austin,Tnos 181fiS.

l~J~

8Io88ft 111.. SAf§TV

''''''EDS"..rES-DE~.I/'"E''' D#' 'HE ""'EI/,o,,

.''''E.IIOF

"",: "D..RAINHART COMPACTION MACHIN£

AND CYLIND£R MOLD MODIFIpATIONS(/fOLLE/f COMPACTED CONC/f£TE 'ROJECTJ

:::~~~=:_:it~~~~~MODIFIED TAMPER ROD ASSEMBLY

NOTE,ror USiwith 1M RainhartCompoctorT"Un Roinhorttamp'nII head Cat. frto,662tH&SI&SlI!IPIflMntot .5l1l;i11l1litampilllj niqllt Cat No.H! KSW(Tamper assembly wtIJIUsteqllCll10Ibs.~o.O!IIIIs

MOLD CENTERING GUIOE

"""TO"LU"""UMON["[O'D 101-0-656

Figure C1.-Rainhart compaction machine and cylinder mold modifications. 101-D-656.

APPENDIX D

Laboratory Test Data

69

Average

Identification Laboratory compaction test Average compressive strength durabilitymass loss

Wet unit Ca1cul ated Waterweight at Maximum optimum cementi -

Fines Number Compactive effort max. unit dry unit moisture tious Freeze- Wet-content of weight weight content materials 7-day 28-day 90-da~ 180-da~ 360-da~ thaw dry

(%) bl ows/l ift (ft-lbf/in3) (ft-lbf/ftJ) (lbf/ft3) (lbf/ft3) (%) ratio (lbfl1n2) (lbfl1n2) (lbfl1n) (lbf/in) (lbf/in) (%) (%)

0 27 7.2 12,442 151. 7 143.4 5.8 0.64 815 1,495 3,025 3,525 4,134 0.4 0.6

50 13.3 22,982 152.6 145.2 5.1 0.56 1,035 1,785 2,685 4,300 4,289 0.4 0.4

80 21.2 36.634 153.4 146.5 4.7 0.51 1,400 1,980 3,245 3,830 4,600 0.4 0.2

122 32.4 55,987 153.6 146.8 4.6 0.50 1,555 2,160 3,330 4,150 4.274 0.4 0.3

10 27 7.2 12,442 149.4 139.8 6.9 0.79 690 1,165 2,555 3,110 3,272 1.2 0.3

50 13.3 22,982 150.6 141. 8 6.2 0.69 895 1,385 3,010 3,010 3,845 0.6 0.2

80 21.2 36,634 149.8 142.7 5.0 0.56 1,070 1,605 2,925 2,850 3,678 0.6 0.4

122 32.4 55,987 151.1 144.6 4.5 0.49 1,260 1,870 2,635 3,460 3,428 0.6 0.1

20 27 7.2 12,442 146.0 136.3 7.1 0.84 470 1,015 1,890 2,300 2.688 0.5 0.6

50 13.3 22,982 146.7 137.9 6.4 0.76 640 1,170 1,730 2,100 2,918 0.4 1.0

80 21.2 36,634 147.3 139.0 6.0 0.70 705 1,210 1,935 2,175 2,885 0.4 1.4

122 32.4 55,987 148.6 141. 3 5.2 0.59 985 1,475 2,305 2,520 2,991 0.6 0.9

J.....

Table D-1.-Summary of roller-compacted concrete test results (compaction, compressive strength, and durability).

IDENTIFICATION LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST INDEX UNIT WEIGHT TESTS CONCRETE CONSISTENCY TEST 11! Wet unit

i Max. Calculated Min. weight from Water- Approx.Wet dry optimum index Max. index Max. index max. index cementi- time of

Fines Number unit unit moi sture unit unit weight unit weight unit weight Wet Dry tious consistencyIcontent of weight weight content weight (dry method) (wet method) (wet method) unit wei~ht unit wei~ht materials test

(%) blows/lift (1 bf /ft3) (lbf/ft3) (%) (lbf/ft3) (lbf/ft3) (lbf/ft3) (lbf/ft3) (lbf/ft) ( 1bf / ft ) ratio (see)

0 27 151. 7 143.4 5.8 120.8 144.2 142.3 150.4 154.0 145.7 0.64 60

50 152.6 145.2 5.1 146.7 154.2 153.2 145.8 0.56 180 Y

80 153.4 146.5 4.7 140.3 146.9 151. 5 144.7 0.51 180 Y

I 122 153.6 146.8 4.6 140.5 147.0 151. 7 145.0 0.50 180 YI!

10 27 149.4 139.8 6.9 120.1 143.9 145.7 155.6 150.9 141. 3 0.79 30

50 150.6 141.8 6.2 145.0 153.7 151. 3 142.7 0.69 60

80 149.8 142.7 5.0 131. 9 138.5 150.1 143.0 0.56 180 Y

122 151.1 144.6 4.5 126.3 132.0 144.1 137.9 0.49 180 Y

20 27 146.0 136.3 7.1 117.9 141.1 136.7 146.4 147.7 137.9 0.84 30

50 146.7 137.9 6.4 128.7 137.1 145.7 136.8 0.76 180 Y

80 147.3 139.0 6.0 128.2 135.9 145.7 137.5 0.70 180 Y

122 148.6 141. 3 5.2 115.7 121. 7 143.1 136.0 0.59 180 1/

JN

iI; Tests performed on RCCmixes prepared at the approximate optimum moisture contents determined from RCClaboratory compaction tests.- Mortar ring did not form. vibration was stopped and time recorded.

Table D-2.-Summary of roller-compacted concrete index unit weight and concrete consistency test results.

15. 15.

'" '">- >-"- "-, ,"- 1<5 "- "5~..

">- /\ >-:I: :I:

~1<. ~,..w

I 'w3: >:

>- >-z Z:J :J

>- >-'" '""

135"

135

15.

'">-"-,"-

,.5..

">-:I: ~,..W3:::;Z:J>-'""

135

/~

II

~/

/ 1'-

>-:I:

~I'.w3:::;

/~z:J

>-'""

135 .

>-:I: ~,..w \.13:

all

::;

I

z:J

>-'""

135

13.2 B e 10 12

OVEN-DRY MOISTURE CONTENT -(PERCENT>

Figure D1.-Compaction curve - aggregate with 10% fines(27 blows per lift).

'">-"-,"-....J

>-:I:~W

'">-Z:J

>-

'""

15.

1<5

,.. /~

135

13.2 S B 10 12

OVEN-DRY MOISTURE CONTENT -(PERCENT)


13.2 6 8 10 12

OVEN-DRY MOISTURE CONTENT - (PERCENT)


I'

'">-"-,"-..

"

13.2 6 8 10 12


,.


15.

,.5

I'

'">-"-,"-..

"

13.2 6 B 10 12

OVEN-DRY MOISTURE CONTENT - (PERCENT>

,.


15.

1<5

"

73

13.2 6 B 10 12

OVEN-DRY MOISTURE CONTENT - (PERCENT>

,.


IS. IS.

'" '"I-... I-, ...... 145

'145.. ...

/ '''~:; ..

:;II-

I-/-~

1:1:~" 14. ... 14.

~/ ~J:

~~ZZ ::J::J

>->-'"'" "" 135 135

,~/ \

',---

'"I-...,.....:;

I-1:~...J:

~Z::J>-i!i

135 135

'"

;;;I- I-... ...,

145 '145I!; .....

:;

/:;

I I

I- \~ I-1: 1:~"... 14. ~14.J:

/°~~z Z::J ::J>- >-'" '"" "135 135

13.2 6 B 10 12

OVE:N-DRY MOISTURE: CONTE:NT - (PERCE:NT)14

13.2 S B IS 12

CAlCULFlTE:D MOISTURE CONTENT - (PERCENT)

14


Figure D10.-Compaction curve - roller-compacted concrete(0% fines, 50 blows per lift).

IS. IS.

I-1:~...J:

I-Z::J

14. 14.

'"I-...,.....:;

145 145

>-'""

13.2 S 9 10 12


14

13.2 6 9 10 12

CRLCULRTE:D MOISTURE: CONTE:NT - (PE:RCENT)14



IS. 15.

i t' [

-j-i

I t----t ---t

1

--+--1-1--I

', I

1413.

213.

2 6 8 10 12

CALCULATED MOISTURE CONTENT - (PERCENT)6 8 10 12

CALCULATED MOISTURE CONTENT - (PERCENT)14



74

15.

'"I-...,... 145..

~I-

X::: 14.

'""I:;Z

">-2i ..5/'~~I

15.

'"I-...,iii 145

~I-

ij; 14.

I:;Z

">-2i

135

I ~"-'"

~/ "'.

15.

'"I-...,... 145..

~I-

X

" 14.

~I:;z

">-'""

135

I- r~ ....X X

"14. :::

~~'"14.

".... I:;

/~z z

" ">- >-'"

2i"

135 135

'"I-...,.....~

l-X:::

'""I:;z">-'""

'"I-...,.....~

13.2 6 8 IS 12

CALCULATED MOISTURE CONTENT - (PERCENT>

1413.

2 6 8 lEI 12CALCULATED MOISTURE CONTENT - (PERCENT)

14


14

...2 6 8 10 12

CALCULATED MOISTURE CONTENT - (PERCENT>14


15.

145

14./~

/" '"

14


'"I-...,.....~

15.

145

135

...2 6 8 10 12

CALCULATED MOISTURE CONTENT - (PERCENT>


...

145

13.2 6 8 Ie 12

CALCULATED MOISTURE CONTENT - (PERCENT)


13.2 6 B 18 12

CALCULATED MOISTURE CONTENT - (PERCENT>14


75

"0 '50

'" '"I- I-... ..., ,... '45 ...

'45.. ..

~~I-I-~:>: :>:g

'40g

'40'" '"~:J:

/\:J:

I:; I:;z Z:J :J

>- >-'" '"'" 135 '" 135

1302 S 8 19 12

CALCULATED MOISTURE CONTENT - (PERCENT>'4

'302 6 8 1" 12CALCULATED MOISTURE CONTENT - (PERCENT) '4



76

APPENDIX E

Laboratory Testing Procedures

77

Laboratory Compaction Test - Aggregate With Fines

Sample preparation. - A 0.30-ft3 batch of the required aggregate

and fines blend was prepared for each compaction test specimen.

The aggregate and fines blend used for each specimen met gradation

requirements for the specified RCC mix design, excluding cement,

fly ash, and WRA (water reducing agent). The required quantity of

water was calculated and added to the aggregate and fines blend and

thoroughly mixed by hand. The moistened mixture was covered and

set aside for 10 minutes to allow time for dispersion and

absorption of the water. Each specimen was mixed, moistened, and

compacted individually.

Compaction. - The mass and volume of each compaction mold was

predetermined. The assembled mold was placed on the baseplate of

the automatic compaction device, centered using the mold centering

guide, and secured to the baseplate. Approximately 4.5 to 5.0 Ibm

of aggregate and fines was placed in the mold and spread into a

layer of uniform thickness. The layer was then compacted with the

specified number of blows from a 10.0-lbm sector-faced rammer

dropped from a height of 18.0 inches. The blows were distributed

over the entire surface of the layer. This process was repeated

until six layers were compacted. Prior to placement of the sixth

layer, the collar of the mold was attached to the mold assembly.

The sixth layer, when compacted, extended 0.25 to 0.50 inch into

the collar (above the mold). The mold and collar were removed from

the baseplate of the compaction device. The collar was removed

from the mold; and using a straightedge, the specimen was trimmed

79

flush with the top of the mold. The mass of the mold and compacted

wet aggregate and fines blend determined. The wet unit weight of

the specimen was calculated. The specimen was extruded from the

mold, placed in a suitable container, and the entire specimen used

for an ovendry moisture content determination. This procedure was

repeated until at least five specimens were compacted at different

moisture contents. The dry unit weight of each specimen was

calculated using the ovendry moisture content. The ovendry

moisture contents versus corresponding dry unit weights were

plotted. At least two plotted points were required to fallon

either side of optimum moisture content. If not, additional

specimens were prepared and compacted at appropriate moisture

contents to meet the above requirement.

Laboratory Compaction Test - RCC

Sample preparation. - RCC batches of 0.30 and 0.60 ft3 were

prepared for laboratory compaction testing. When practical, enough

material to prepare two specimens (0.60 ft3) was mixed at one time.

In cases where the time required to compact two specimens was

excessive or only one specimen was required, a 0.30-ft3 batch of

RCC was prepared. The required quantities of aggregate, sand,

fines (when required), cement, fly ash, water, and WRA were batched

based on the RCC mix design and desired moisture content. The

quantity of water was adjusted based on the absorption of the

aggregate and the moisture content of the fines (when required).

The aggregate and approximately one-half of the required

water was placed in the mixer and mixed for 1 minute. The cement,

80

fly ash, and fines (when required) were dry mixed separately by

hand in a small pan and added to the moist aggregate mixture wi th

the remaining water and WRA. Mixing was continued for 4 minutes.

When fines were used, some of the material would stick to the mixer

causing segregation. To eliminate this problem, mixing was stopped

after 2 minutes, and the inside of the mixer was scraped and the

mixing continued for the remaining 2 minutes. Upon completion of

mixing, the material was dumped into a large, damp, metal pan and

remixed with a trowel to minimize segregation of the coarser

material. The material was covered with damp towels to protect the

RCC mixture against moisture loss prior to and during the

compaction process.

Compaction. - The mass and volume of each compaction mold was

predetermined. The assembled mold was placed on the baseplate of

the automatic compaction device, centered using the mold centering

device, and secured to the baseplate. Approx i m ate1 y 4.5 to 5.0 Ibm

of RCC was placed in the mold and spread into a layer of uniform

thickness. The layer was then compacted with the specified number

of blows from a 10-1bm sector-facedrammer dropped from a height of

18.0 inches. The blows were distributed over the entire surface of

the layer. The process was repeated until six layers were

compacted. Prior to placement of the sixth layer, the collar of

the mold was attached to the mold assembly. The sixth layer, when

compacted, extended 0.25 to 0.50 inch into the collar (above the

mold) . The mold and collar were removed from the baseplate of the

compaction device. The collar was removed from the mold; and using

a straightedge, the specimen was trimmed flush with the top of the

81

mold. The mass of the mold and compacted wet RCC was determined,

and the wet unit weight was computed. Because of cement hydration,

ovendry moisture content determinations provided erratic results.

Therefore, the design moisture content (by dry batch mass) was used

to calculate the dry unit weight of each specimen.

This procedure was repeated until at least five specimens

were compacted at different moisture contents. The design moisture

contents versus corresponding dry unit weights were plotted. At

least two plotted points were required to fallon either side of

optimum moisture content. If not, additional specimens were

prepared and compacted at appropriate moisture contents to meet the

above requirement.

Unconfined Compressive Strength Test

Sample preparation. - Mixes for the RCC compressive strength

test specimens were prepared at optimum moisture contents

determined from the laboratory compaction procedure. The mixes

were prepared in the same manner as described in the compaction

test for RCC.

Compaction. - The compressive strength test specimens were

compacted in the same manner as the compaction specimens,

except that each layer was rodded 25 times with a round-nosed

5/8-inch-diameter tamping rod to ensure that the material was

uniformly distributed along the sides of the mold. The specimens

were compacted to within ~ 0.5 percent of the laboratory maximum

dry unit weight, as determined from the laboratory compaction test.

Because of the coarse aggregate, the top surface of the specimen was

82

usually rough after trimming; and it was necessary to apply a thin

cover using a 3:1 (sand to cement) grout mix to provide a

relatively smooth, uniform surface for the sulfur cap. The

compressive strength specimens were cured in the mold in a fog room

(100 percent humidity) at 73.4 .:!:3.0 OF or a period of 24 hours

before removal from the mold. The specimens were labeled and

placed in the fog room for the remainder of the specified curing

period.

Compressive strength testing. - At the end of the specified curing

period, the test specimens were capped with sulfur in accordance

with Concrete Manual, [5] Designation 32, Capping Concrete

Cylinders. The test specimens were loaded in compression to

failure in accordance with Concrete Manual, Designation 33,

Compressive strength [5]. Compressive strength was calculated

as the load at failure divided by the cross-sectional area.

Wet-Dry and Freeze-Thaw Durability Tests

Sample preparation. - Mixes for RCC durability test specimens were

prepared at the optimum moisture contents determined from the

laboratory compaction procedure for RCC. The mixes were prepared

in the same manner as described in the compaction test for RCC.

Compaction. - The durability test specimens were compacted in the

same manner as the compaction specimens, except that each layer

was rodded 25 times with a round-nosed 5/8-inch-diameter tamping

rod to ensure that the material was uniformly distributed along the

sides of the mold. The specimens were compacted to within

83

.:t0.5 percent of the laboratory maximum dry unit weight, as

determined in the laboratory compaction test. The durabtlity test

specimens were cured in the mold in a fog room (100% humidity) at

13.4 .:t3.0 OF for a period of 24 hours before removing from the

mold. The specimens were labeled and placed in the fog room for

toe remainder of the 1-day curing period.

Preparation for testing. - Upon completion of the 1-day curing

period in the fog room, the 6.0-inch-diameter by 12-inch-high test

specimen was cut to a length of 5.11 inches with a masonry saw.

The outside of each specimen was taped at the location to be cut

prior to cutting to minimize damage to the edges. The moisture

content of the specimen was determined from the cut ends of the

test specimen. After the ends of the test specimens were cut, the

wet mass of each specimen was determined. Using the moisture

content obtained from the ends, the initial dry mass of the

specimen was calculated.

Wet-dry durability testing. - The remainder of the W-D (wet-dry)

durability test was performed in accordance with procedures

described in subparagraphs 12.1 through 12.9, 12.12, and 12.13 of

USBR 5820, Procedure for Performing Wet-Dry Durability Testing of

Compacted Soil-Cement Mixtures.* Because of the larger surface

area of the 6-inch-diameter RCC test specimen as compared to the

4-inch-diameter soil-cement test specimen, more brush strokes were

required to cover the entite surface area of the RCC specimen.

Twenty-two to twenty-four brush strokes were required to cover the

'~SBR--5~20 wirr-be-available in the new edition of the Earth Manual.

84

sides of the RCC specimen twice, and six strokes were requi~ed on

each end. This produced approximately the same amount of brushing

per unit area as is used on the standard 4-inch-diameter

soil-cement specimens.

Freeze-thaw durabilit1 testin&. - The remainder of the F-T (freeze-

thaw) durability test was performed in accordance with procedures

described in subparagraphs 13.1 through 13.12, 13. 14 , and 13. 15 of

USBR 5825, Procedure for Performing Freeze-Thaw Durability Testing

of Compacted Soil-Cement Mixtures.* Because of the larger surface

area of the 6-inch-diameter RCC test specimen as compared to the

4-inch-diameter soil-cement test specimen, more brush strokes were

required to cover the entire surface area of the RCC specimen.

Twenty-two to twenty-four brush strokes were required to cover the

sides of the RCC specimen twice, and six strokes were required on

each end. This produced approximately the same amount of brushing

per unit area as is used on the standard 4-inch-diameter

soil-cement specimen.

Relative Density Test

Sample preparation. - Three types of samples were prepared for

relative density testing: dry aggregate only; dry aggregate with

and without fines, cement, and fly ash; and aggregate with and

without fines, cement, and fly ash with water and WRA added. The

dry mixes were prepared by hand, mixing the aggregate with and

without fines first and adding cement and fly ash when required

* USBR 582S-wIII be avaflable in the new edition of the Earth Manual.

85

immediately prior to testing. The wet mixes were prepared at

optimum moisture co~tent as determined from the laboratory

compa0.tion procedure, in the same manner as the compa0.tion test

specimens.

Testing. - Minimum and maximum index unit weight tests were

performed in accordan0.e with the Earth Manual [4],

Designation E-12, Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils; eX0.ept

that during maximum index unit weight testing, intermediate dial

readings were taken after 30 seconds and after 2 minutes of the

total 8 minutes of vibration time.

Concrete Consistency Test

Sample preparation. - Mixes for consistency tests on RCC were

prepared in the same manner as described in the laboratory compaction

test on RCC.

Testing. - Using a scoop, the entire 30-lbm specimen of RCC was

placed into a 9-1/2-in0.h-inside-diameter by 8-in0.h-high mold. The

mold was atta0.hed to a mechanically driven vibrating table with

adjustable eccentrics, 0.alibrated to produce a double amplitude of

vibration of 0.020 in0.h at a frequency of 60 Hz. A 50-Ibm

surcharge was plac~d on top of the specimen. The table was

activated and the inside edge of the mold observed for formation of

a "mortar ring." As soon as the ring_formed, vibration was

stopped, vibration time recorded, the surcharge removed, and the

wet unit weight determined. If, following,3 minutes of vibration,

the "mortar ring" had not formed, vibration was stopped, the time

86

recorded, the surcharge removed, and the wet unit weight

determined.

The volume of the portion of the mold above the consolidated RCC

specimen was determined using the water replacement method. This

volume was subtracted from the predetermined total volume of the

mold to prov ide the vol ume of RCC. Using the initial mass of the

RCC and the calculated volume of RCC, the wet density of RCC was

determined and converted to wet unit weight.

87

APPENDIX F

Calculations for Determining Lengthof Roller-Compacted Concrete

Durability Test Specimens

Sample Calculations for DeterminingTheoretical Zero Air Void Unit Weight

and Percent Compaction

89

CALCULATIONS FOR DETERMINING LENGTHOF RCC DURABILITY TEST SPECIMENS

The RCC durability test specimens were cut to a length of 5.77 inches

to provide the same relationship of maximum aggregate size to surface

area as provided by current soil-cement durability testing procedures.

Standard soil-cement durability test specimens are 4 inches in

diameter by 4.58 inches high, and a maximum aggregate size of

3/4 inch is allowed. The surface area of a cylindrical specimen is

determined using the following equation:

SA = 2 7r r (h + r)

where

SA = Surface area of a cylindrical specimen (in2)

r = Radius of cylinder (in)

h = Height of cylinder (in)

7r = Con tant equal to 3.1416

Solving for the surface area of a soil-cement specimen (4 inches in

diameter by 4.58 inches high):

SAse = 21'(2)(4.58 + 2)

SAse = 82.69 in2

Solving for the surface area of an Ree specimen where the diameter

equals 6 inches and the height (h) is unknown:

h = height (in)

r = 3 inches

91

SARCC =(2)~(3)(h + 3)

SARCC = 18.85h + 56.55

The value of h was then determined using a proportion of

required surface area to maximum aggregate size (1-1/2 inches for

RCC specimens) as follows:

~~~f!~~!~~!_~f_~~!l=~~~~~~~E~~!~en=Surface area of RCC specimenSoil-cement maximum aggregate size KCC maXlmum aggregate slze

82.69 -0.75 - 18.85h + 56.55

l.~O

h = 5.77 inches

92

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS FOR DETERMININGTHEORETICAL ZERO AIR VOID UNIT WEIGHT

AND PERCENT COMPACTION

The following calculations show the procedure for determining

theoretical compaction based on theoretical zero air void wet unit

weight. The example summarizes calculations for the RCC mix

containing 0 percent fines prepared at a moisture content of 5.1

percent (optimum moisture content determined from compaction procedure

using 50 blows per lift), figure 17.

From the original mix design (see table 1):

Coarse aggregate, dry mass

2680.0 Ibm

2656.8 Ibm

Coarse aggregate, SSD mass

Absorbed moisture in coarse aggregate(see table 3)

23.2 Ibm

Sand, SSD mass 952.0 Ibm

945.0 IbmSand, dry mass

Absorbed moisture in sand (see table B-1)

Total mass of absorbed moisture

7.0 Ibm

30.2 Ibm

(Absorbed moisture in coarse aggregate) +(Absorbed moisture in sand) =

(23.2 Ibm) + (7.0 Ibm)

Total mass of free moisture 164.5 Ibm

Total mass of water 194.7 Ibm

(Total free moisture) +(Total absorbed moisture) =

(164.5 Ibm) + (30.2 Ibm)

Mass of cementitious materials(50% cement + 50% fly ash)

300.0 Ibm

93

Total mass of dry material

(Dry mass of coarse aggregate) +(Dry mass sand) +

(Mass cementitious materials)(2656.8 Ibm + 945.0 Ibm + 300 Ibm)

3901.8 Ibm

Wet mass of RCC 4096.5 Ibm

(Total mass of water) +(Total mass dry material) =

(194.7 Ibm) + (3901.8 Ibm)

Solid volume of RCC 26.59 ft3

154.1 Ibf/ft3Theoretical ~et zero air void unit weight

SSD mass of RCC=

4096.5 IbmSolid volume 26.59 ftj

Mix adjusted for 5.1 percent ~~~~~r~

Wet unit weight at maximum drv unit weight obtained fromcompactio' te' is 152.5 Laf/ft3 (fi.g. 17).

Total mass of ~ater at 5.1 percent moisture 199.0 Ibm

(Total dry mass of RCC)(Moisture content) =(3901.8 Ibm)(5.1/100)

Total mass of water-mass of absorbed water(199.0 Ibm) - (30.2 Ibm)

168.8 Ibm

Mass of additional free water above originalmix design

(168.8 Ibm) - (164.5 Ibm)4.3 Ibm

Volume of additional free water above originalmix design

0.07 ft 3

Mass of additional waterDensity of water =

4.3 Ibmo2.Q lbm/ft3

94

*Theoretical wet zero air void unit weight 153.8 Ibf/ft3

(SSD mass of original RCC mix + mass of additional water)(Solid volume of original RCC mix + volume of additional water)

(4096.5 Ibm + 4.3 Ibm)(26.59 ft3 + 0.07 ft3)

Theoretical percent compaction 99.2 %

(Wet unit weight obtained from compaction test) x 100(1neoretlcal wet zero aIr vOId unIt welgnt)

152.6 lbf/ftl x 100153.8 Ibf/ft3

*For this application, assume 1 Ibm equals 1 lbf.

"'US.GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE,1990-832'24395

Mission of the Bureau of Reclamation

The Bureau of Reclamation of the U.S. Department of the Interior is rewonsible for the development and conservation of the Nation's water resources in the Western United States.

The Bureau's original purpose "to provide for the reclamation ilt arid and semiarid lands in the West" today covers a wide range of interre- lated functions. These include providing municipal and industrial water supplies; hydroelectric power generation; irrigation water for agricul- ture; water quality improvement; flood control; river navigation; river regulation and control; fish and wildlife enhancement; outdoor recrea- tion; and research on water-related design, construction, materials, atmowheric management, and wind and solar power.

Bureau programs most frequently are the result of close cooperation with the U.S. Congress, other Federal agencies, States, local govern- ments, academic institutions, water-user organizations, and other concerned groups.

A free pamphlet is available from the Bureau entitled "Publications for Sale." It describes some of the technical publications currently available, their cost, and how to order them. The pamphlet can be obtained upon request from the Bureau of Reclamation, Attn D-7923A, P 0 Box 25007, Denver Federal Center, Denver CO 80225-0007.

report no. rec-erc-89-3, "soil laboratory compaction

Documents