shrinkage testing: available tests - cptech center spring nc2/28 weiss-ncc...shrinkage testing:...
TRANSCRIPT
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 1 of 27
Shrinkage Testing: Available Tests
Jason Weiss, Edwards Distinguished Professor of Engineering
April 26th, 2017
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 2 of 27
A Bit of Background
• I was asked to discuss: • discuss available shrinkage tests • pro’s and con’s of shrinkage tests
• I am assuming this is driven in part by AASHTO PEM spec
• I will be glad to share some thoughts on this but I am so sure of what pros and cons we are after
Concrete Shrinkage: Is This the Key?
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 3 of 27
PEM Guide Developed
• Section 6.4 deals with reducing volume change (Options)
• Do Nothing
• Limit Paste
• Measure Volume Change
• Restrained Shrinkage Cracking
• Probabilistic Cracking
• Not Covered Plastic Cracking (Evaportation, Settlement, Autogenous)
• I will also state that I disagree that this is the most important part of warping or curling and there are ways to deal with that directly
Property Specified TestMixture
QualificationAcceptance Special Notes
6.3.1 Flexural Strength AASHTO T 97 4.1 MPa 600 psi Yes Yes
6.3.2 Compressive Strength AASHTO T 22 24 MPa 3500 psi Yes Yes
6.4.1.1 Volume of Paste 25% Yes No
6.4.1.2 Unrestrained Volume Change ASTM C157 420 me at 28 day Yes No Curing Conditions
6.4.2.1 Unrestrained Volume Change ASTM C157 360, 420, 480 me at 91 days Yes No
6.4.2.2 Restrained Shrinkage AASHTO T 334 crack free at 180 days Yes No
6.4.2.3 Restrained Shrinkage AASHTO TP XXX s < 60% f'r at 7 days Yes No Dual ring test is currently under consideration as an AASHTO Provisional Test Method
6.4.2.4 Probability of Cracking Appendix X1 5, 20, 50% as specified Yes No
Commentary Quality control check ~ ~ ~ No Yes Variation controlled with mixture proportion observation or F Factor and Porosity Measures
6.5.1.1 Water to Cementitious Ratio ~ 0.45 ~ Yes Yes Choose Either 6.5.1.1 or 6.5.2.1
6.5.1.2 Fresh Air Content AASHTO T 152, T196, TP 118 5 to 8 % Yes Yes
6.5.1.3 Fresh Air Content/SAM AASHTO T 152, T196, TP 118 ≥ 4% Air; SAM ≤ 0.2 %, psi Yes Yes
6.5.2.1 Time of Critical Saturation "Bucket Test" Specification 30 Years Yes No Note 1 Note 2 Variation controlled with mixture proportion observation or F Factor and Porosity Measures
6.5.3.1 Deicing Salt Damage ~ 35% SCM Yes Yes Are calcium or magnesium chloride used
6.5.3.2 Deicing Salt Damage AASHTO M 224 ~Topical
TreatmentYes Yes Are calcium or magnesium chloride used, use specified sealers
6.5.4.1 Calcium Oxychloride Limit Test sent to AASHTO Yes No Are calcium or magnesium chloride used
6.6 Transport Properties
6.6.1.1 Water to Cementitious Ratio ~ ≤ 0.45 or ≤ 0.50 ~ Yes Yes The required maximum water to cementitious ratio is selected based on freeze-thaw conditions.
6.6.1.2 Formation Factor Table 1 ≥ 500 or ≥ 1000 ~ Yes Yes Based on freeze-thaw conditions. Other criteria could be selected
6.6.2.1 Ionic Penetration, F Factor Appendix X2 Yes, F through r Determined using guidance provided in Appendix X2.
6.7.1 D Cracking AASHTO T 161, ASTM C 1646 ~ ~ Yes No
6.7.2 Alkali Aggregate Reactivity AASHTO PP 65 ~ ~ Yes No
6.8.1 Box Test Appendix X3 No
6.8.2 Modified V-Kelly Test Appendix X4 No
Note 1: Choose Either 6.5.1.1 or 6.5.2.1
Note 2: Choose either 6.5.1.2, 6.5.1.3, or 6.5.2.1
< 0.15g CaOXY/g paste
25 mm at 30 year
<6.25 mm, < 30% Surf. Void
15-30 mm per root seconds
6.7 Aggregate Stability
6.8 Workability
Choose one
Choose Only One
Section
Choose
only one
6.3 Concrete Strength
6.4 Reducing Unwanted Slab Warping and Cracking Due to Shrinkage (If Cracking is a Concern)
6.5 Durability of Hydrated Cement Paste for Freeze-Thaw Durability
Choose either or both
Choose only one
Specified ValueSelection
Details
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 4 of 27
Option 0 – Do nothing
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 5 of 27
Option 1 – Limit Paste Volume
• L’Hermite, Robert G. "Volume changes of concrete." 4th Int. Symp. on the Chemistry of Cement. 1960.
• Work in the 1910s in Germany suggested limiting paste
• Dutron (1956) developed an empirical expression based on observations of shrinkage
• L’Hermite reviewed the role of paste
• Pickett and Hobbs applied substantial math to this problem
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 6 of 27
• The models by Pickett, Hobbs, and others provide a substantial framework to earlier observations
• Picketts model shown below is the easiest to use and understand
• Hobbs works well with very low stiffness aggregate and air
Option 1 – Limit Paste Volume
n
fAggPasteConcrete
fPastePastefAggAggConcrete
V
VV
)1(
ee
eee
Typical
Concrete
n 1.2~1.7
0 20 40 60 80 100
Aggregate Volume (%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Rela
tive S
hri
nkag
e (
%)
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 7 of 27
Option 2 – Set a Volume Change Limit
• Can we measure volume change – of course
• ASTM C 157 and C 341 are two test methods
• Some comments on ASTM C 157 • Where does the test start
• The adjective game – many call this a drying test however it is total shrinkage
• Misses autogenous shrinkage before the test starts
• Rate depends on sample geometry
• Depends on boundary conditions
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 8 of 27
Comparing Volume Change Due to Temperature and Due to Moisture Loss
• Temperature provides a coefficient that describes a range
• ASTM C157 provides a single value for a given environmental condition
-10
00
-80
0
-60
0
-40
0
-20
0 0
20
0
40
0
60
0
80
0
10
00
Longitudinal Strain (me)
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Te
mp
era
ture
Ch
an
ge
(C
)
1
a
TTEMP ae 31 RHNSH e
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 9 of 27
A Lesson from Erich Weiss
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 10 of 27
Option 3 – Restrained Shrinkage Initial Specimen
Shrinkage Effect
Restraint Effect
Initial Specimen
Shrinkage Effect
Restraint Effect
Initial Pavement, Bridge Deck
Disconnect it From
The Subgrade or Structure
Apply Force to
‘Simulate’ Subgrade
Maintain “Zero”
Displacement
(In real-life actually
not complete but…) Weiss et al. 1998, JEM
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 11 of 27
Option 3 – Restrained Shrinkage
Creep/Cracking Effect
Stress Relaxation
28
,,
E
tdd
E
dtd SHR
se
se
s
Stress
Relaxation
Weiss et al. 1998, JEM
e
se
s
SHRdE
dtd ,
Initial Specimen
Shrinkage Effect
Restraint Effect
0 7 14 21 28
Age of Specimen (Days)
0
4
8
12
Stress Based
On Hooke’s Law
Stress In
Specimen
Ca
lcu
late
d T
en
sile
Str
es
s (
MP
a )
0 7 14 21 28
Age of Specimen (Days)
0
4
8
12
Stress Based
On Hooke’s Law
Ca
lcu
late
d T
en
sile
Str
es
s (
MP
a )
Final Stress State
Stress In
Specimen
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 12 of 27
A Bit of History of the Ring • Carlson and co-workers (1930-50 pub. in 1988)
• Douglas, McHenry, Brewer, Burrows (1930-50) – paste
• Malhotra et al. (1950’s) used an active ring to assess strength Swamy and Stavarides (1976) apprx. eqn for stress
• Krenchel & Shah (1985) Grzybowski & Shah (1990) FRC
• Kovler (1994) - active ring to measure cracking
• Weiss (1997) - active ring to measure creep
• Weiss (1999) – discussed geometry and B.C.
• Furgeson and Weiss (2001) – Geometrically correct eqn
• Weiss (2002) – dual ring test for expansion
• Moon and Weiss (2005) – Moisture Gradients
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 13 of 27
• Using an Instrumented
Ring
• Measure Strain that
Develops in Steel
• Determine the Pressure
Required to Obtain that
Strain
• Apply Pressure to
Concrete and Obtain
Tensile Stress
Original Ring
0 10 20 30
Time (Days)
-200
0
Ste
el
Str
ain
(m
e)
-100
Measured Strain
Pres
Determine Pressure
Pres
Obtain Stress
Ctt
RR
RR
R
RREtt
SteelRrConcrete
ICOC
ICOC
OS
ISOSSSteelRrConcrete
IC
IC
es
es
22
22
2
22
2
Furgeson and Weiss 2000
Option 3 – Restrained Shrinkage
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 14 of 27
• Degree of Restraint from a Test
• Linear Test
• Ring Test
• A priori Ring
Option 3 – Restrained Shrinkage
)1()1(
)(
)(
2
11
2
2
SS
OS
IS
SH
st
R
R
t
t
e
e
)1()1(
)1()1(
1
1
11
2
2
2
2
'
'
S
OS
ISS
C
OS
OCC
OS
OC
OS
IS
S
C
S
C
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
E
E
E
E
Moon et al. CCC 2006
If the restraint is too great, no strain is measured in the
restraining material
Shrinkage Free
Permitted1
1
1
e
e
RR
CC
EA
EA
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 15 of 27
Option 3 – Restrained Shrinkage
Dimensions
[mm]
A 12.5 0.13
B 330 3
C 406 3
D 150 6
AASHTO PP 34-99 ASTM C 1581-04
Dimensions
[mm]
A 12.7 0.4
B 305 5
C 457 5
D 152 5 B = 2RIC C = 2ROC
• AASHTO takes a long time to crack 3 to 6 months, DOR is more like what one
may expect in a bridge (60%) but circumferential drying
• ASTM cracks more rapidly but DOR is higher and the wall is thin resulting in
only tests for small aggregate MSA
Radlinska and Weiss 2008
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 16 of 27
Option 3 – Drying Direction Matters
Circumferential
Drying
Top and Bottom
Drying
1/r2
Weiss et al. 2001
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Distance from the outer surface (m)
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Str
es
s (
MP
a)
=0.002
InnerSurfaceof the Conc. Ring
Econ / Esteel =0.105
Steel
Ring
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Distance from the outer surface (m)
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Str
es
s (
MP
a)
=0.004
InnerSurfaceof the Conc. Ring
Econ / Esteel =0.105
Steel
Ring
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Distance from the outer surface (m)
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Str
es
s (
MP
a)
=0.008
InnerSurfaceof the Conc. Ring
Econ / Esteel =0.105
Steel
Ring
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Distance from the outer surface (m)
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Str
es
s (
MP
a)
=0.02
InnerSurfaceof the Conc. Ring
Econ / Esteel =0.105
Steel
Ring
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Distance from the outer surface (m)
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Str
es
s (
MP
a)
=0.04
InnerSurfaceof the Conc. Ring
Econ / Esteel =0.105
Steel
Ring
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Distance from the outer surface (m)
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Str
es
s (
MP
a)
=0.08
InnerSurfaceof the Conc. Ring
Econ / Esteel =0.105
Steel
Ring
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Distance from the outer surface (m)
0
1
2
3
4
Str
es
s (
MP
a)
=0.2
InnerSurfaceof the Conc. Ring
Econ / Esteel =0.105
Steel
Ring
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Distance from the outer surface (m)
0
1
2
3
4
Str
es
s (
MP
a)
=0.5
InnerSurfaceof the Conc. Ring
Econ / Esteel =0.105
Steel
Ring
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Distance from the outer surface (m)
0
1
2
3
4
Str
es
s (
MP
a)
=100
InnerSurfaceof the Conc. Ring
Econ / Esteel =0.105
Steel
Ring
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Distance from the outer surface (m)
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Str
es
s (
MP
a)
=0.002
=0.004
=0.008
=0.02
=0.04
=0.08
=0.2
=0.5
=100
InnerSurfaceof the Conc. Ring
Econ / Esteel =0.105
Steel
Ring
Moon et al. Consec 2003
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 17 of 27
Can We Do More than Look for Age of Cracking
Strength
0 14 28
Time (Days)
0
2
4
6
Str
ess (
MP
a)
Residual
Stress
Visible
Cracking
9 mm Steel Wall Thickness with a 75 mm
Concrete Wall Thickness (W/C = 0.50)
Hossain and Weiss, CCC, 2004
• Converts test results from limited
(it cracked or it did not crack) to
informative
• Analysis of the test method
enables an economic ‘QC/QA’
• Test is simple to perform and
complicated analysis can be
automated
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 18 of 27
Dual Ring Test – Addressing items not addressed in the standard ring test
• Expansive mixtures
• Temperature changes
• Unsatisfying to wait 6 months and see nothing (3 to 7 day answer)
• Error in thought ‘core of concrete’
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96
Time (hr)
-2
0
2
4
6
Te
ns
ile
Str
es
s (
MP
a)
0
10
20
30
Te
mp
era
ture
(o
C)
STRESS
TEMPERATURE
s RIC eIN EINVARRIC
2RII
2
2 RIC2
ROC
2RIC
2
ROC2
RIC2
eOUT EINVARROI
2ROC
2
2 ROC2
2 ROC
2
ROC2
RIC2
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 19 of 27
A Comment on Restraint
• There has been a lot of speculation as to what the core material should be for a ring test and that ‘concrete or asphalt’ is better than a material like steel or invar
• Personally I do not understand this as the essential factors of the core is that it is volumetrically stable, linearly elastic and non absorptive
• Recall the discussion on the degree of restraint it is not just influenced by the modulus of the material but also the geometry
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 20 of 27
Option 4 – Simulation of Cracking Potential
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 21 of 27
Option 4 – Simulation of Cracking Potential
• Plotted the percentage of specimens cracked by a specific age
• Results of 10,000 simulations
• Can quantify risk or total probability
• Age of cracking is not the best measure of a mixture
0 14 28 42 56 70
Age of the Specimen (Days)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Spe
cim
ens
Cra
cked
(%)
Age of Cracking
Deterministic
Age of Cracking
5% Probability
PCRACK
Spec
ime
ns
Cra
cke
d (
%)
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 22 of 27
Cracking not Being Discussed
• Plastic Cracking (3 Main Components)
• Evaporation
• Differential Settlement
• Autogenous Shrinkage
• Kayir and Weiss 2002
• Qi and Weiss 2002
• Kwak et al 2008
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 23 of 27
Ease Easy Easy Moderate Moderate Hard
Initial Costs 0 Nearly 0 Low Moderate/
High
Moderate/
High
Time to Perform 0 Nearly 0 28 to 180 d 3 to 180 d Some time
Including Innovative Materials No No Yes, BC
Issue Yes Yes
Output None Paste Vol. me value Crack Age of
% Strength
Prob. of
Cracking
Do
Nothing
Limit
Paste
Linear
Strain
Rest.
Ring
Prob.
Model
An Attempt at a Pros and Cons Table
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 24 of 27
Conclusions
• Limit Paste Volume – Good First Step
• Volume Change Limit – OK but flawed initial steps, time consuming, only evaluates shrinkage, constant env RH/Temp (issue for innov)
• Restrained Ring – Discussed drying direction, wall thickness, degree of restraint and temperature sensitivity
• Dual Ring – Can be a faster test that can be taken to the field with less temperature sensitivity, enables more innovative mixtures, fallacy exists with core matching structural materials
• Probabilistic Model – Direction we could be heading with promise but requires more inputs
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 25 of 27
• We have lots of people sharing opinions about tests
• As an industry we spend a lot of time thinking about tests …… but not as much time thinking about how tests can be used in specifications
• I think we want tests that are simple to perform, and repeatable rather than indicies
• I think we want an ‘easy interpretation’ which can occur with simple apps and we should not be scared by an equation with three variables as standardization makes these ‘constants’
Just my opinion …..
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 26 of 27
NCC – Shrinkage Tests Slides Prepared by Jason Weiss Slide 27 of 27
Thank you Are There Any Questions
Jason Weiss
Edwards Distinguished Professor
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Restrained-Shrinkage-Testing