This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
STRENGTH AND DURABILITY
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science Civil and Environmental Engineering (Structures)
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Wisconsin -Madison 1996
I extend my thanks to my advisor Dr. Steven M. Crarner, Associate Professor of Civil and
Environmental Engineering; he has provided invaluable guidance and support throughout these two years. The energy and attention which he afforded to this research and the interest which has taken in my professional development are deeply appreciated. Acknowledgment is extended to Dr. Rodolfo V. de la Cruz, Associate Professor of Materials s of the project. Science and Engineering for h ~ support F i c i a l support of the project fi-om the University of Wisconsin Solid Waste Research Council, the Dane County Department of Public Works, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and the United States Enviromntal Protection Agency is gratefully acknowledged. The direction, interest, and assistance of John Reindl, Recycling Manager for the Dane County Department of Public Works, is appreciated. The following contributions are also deeply appreciated: John Dunn, Dane County Public Works Engineer for technical assistance and coordination of the field trials The workers at Joe Daniels, Inc. for their patience during the painstaking construction of the field trial sections M. J. Schmidt Corp. of Milwaukee for their donation of waste glass LaFarge Corporation and Holnarn Cement Corporation for their donation of portland cement Wisconsin Power & Light and Wisconsin Electric Power Company for their donations of fly ash Lycon, Inc. for their donation of aggregates
W. R. Grace, Inc. for their donation of admixtures
Dr. Alex Mishulovich of Construction Technology Laboratory for processing the powdered
glass For their guidance and help throughout my Master of Science program and before, I thank Prof. Jok A. Pinchiera, Prof. Michael G. Oliva, and Prof. J e k y S. Russell. Invaluable laboratory assistance was received from Bill Lang; and the research would not have been executed without the help of my student colleagues and predecessors: Paul Bakke, Andrea Carpenter, Kamili Jackson, Carolyn Knight, John Reigel, Dipal Vimawala, and Stephen Gaudette. Special heartfelt thanks is due to my family, to my mother and father, for their unfailing love and support, and to my wife, Thekla, a valued liiend and companion.
however. results of others at the University of Wisconsin. Some study of the interactions between the experimental materials and air-entraining admixtures. . and experimental work conducted by the author. to document the alkah-silica reactivity (ASR) of waste glass aggregate and determine means of mitigating this ASR. a laboratory test of the possible use of finely ground glass as a cement supplement. (2) interaction with strength developmnt by fly ash. and resistance to ASR deterioration at ages fiom one month to three years. fly ash and fine powdered waste glass was included to aid application of the conclusions to pavement trials. fr-eezdthaw resistance.Waste glass has been heavily targeted for recycling efforts by various municipalities. Not a l l waste glass can be recycled into new glass. one possible use for this glass is as aggregate in portland cement concrete. An experimental research program was conducted to identlfy characteristics of waste glass that produce satisfactory concrete for pavement applications. a field trial to study several of the most promising mixes under field conditions. The research was conducted in several distinct phases: a study of the interaction of coarse and fine glass with fly ash and their effect on strength and durability. and a series of accelerated ASR expansion mortar bar tests. and to determine the effects of waste glass aggregate and powdered waste glass on the strength and durability of concrete. The performance of waste glass/fly ash concrete was evaluated. It w& determined that the effects of glass aggregate on strength may be divided into three separate effects: (1) water demand of glass aggregate. Evaluation of the experimental mixes included consideration of compressive strength. and other researchers' pubhhed results were used to synthesize conclusions about the processes and m e c b m s of ASR and strength development in waste glass/fly ash concrete. water-reducing admixtures. and alternative methods must be found for utilization of this waste glass.
mitigation can be provided by judicious use of fly ash. . including particle strength and paste-aggregate.bond. dependmg on the form and gradation of the glass and the type of cemnt used. ASR is demonstrated.5%) gain in strength as compared to the control.and (3) intrinsic effects of glass aggregate. Freeze-thaw durability was found to be promising. The combined effect may range between an 80% loss in strength and a slight (=I% .
COMP~SITION AND M.CONCREIE BEHAVIOR HYDRATION .~CROSTRU(-TURE .
DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH -LowALKALI MIXES .MODERATE-ALKALI MIXES RELATIONTO GLASS CONTENTAND FORM . FLY ASHES AND POWDEREDGLASS - CHEMICAL H R N E G II 'S AND S'IRENGTH D ~ P M E N T STRENGTH OVERVIEW -Low-ALKALIMIXES .RELATION TO POWDEREDGLASSCONTENT &KALI-SILICA ~EACTIVITY AND D U R A B ~ - OVERVIEW OF CON^ PRISMEXPANSION AND RELAn0N TO &SS ACCELERATED ASR SERIES RESULTS C O m AND vii .CHAPTER 3 .METHODS AND MATERIALS MATERIALS AGGREGATES ADMUC~URE~ C E M E N T S .DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH .STRENGTH OVERVIEW -MODERATEALKALIMIXES.0n-m OBSERVA~NS .RELATION TO FLY ASH CONTENT AND FORM .
ASR R E A ~ Y GLASS .EFSXTSOF GLASSAGGREGATE GRADATION .SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS M)R APPLICATION CONCLUSIONS STRENGTH .AREASREQUIRINGFURTHERRESEARCH CHAPTER 6 .EFFEC~SOFFLY ASH .TE~~IMUMBEHAVIOR .~ S O F F L Y A S H E m a s OF POWDERED .CHAPTER 5 .CAUSES OF STRENGTH REDUCTION AND VARIATION .USEOF MINERAL ADMIXTUFWIN W m GLASS AGGREGATE CON^ .ASR TBTPROCEDURES .BEHAVIOR DURING PROCESSING AND IN F R E S H CON^ AND WATER DEMAND.DURABILITY .E m s OF POWDERED GLASS E m OF I N I E R A ~ O N S BETWFEN MATERIALS EFFEIXS OF INTERACTIONS WITH GLASS ON BEHAVIOR OF RY ASH WITHAIR-ENTRAINING ADMIXTURE AND WATER REDUCER - hIERACTI0NS ~KALI-SILICA REACTVlTY AND GATI ION R E A ~ Y .EFFECrs OF FLY ASH ON ASR M~GATION - RECOMMENDA~ONS OPTIMAL PROPORTIONS OF WASTE GLASSAGGREGATE AND FLY ASH .EFFECTSOF PARTICLE SHAPE AND TJXWRE .DURABILITY .ANALYSIS OF DATA AND DISCUSSION EFFECTS OF GLASS AGGREGATE STRENGTH .USEOF WASTE G~ASSAGGREGATE .
6 ACC-W ASR EXPANSION RESULTS .1 APPENDIX 3.APPENDICES APPENDIX 3.3 APPENDIX 4.1 VARIABLE PARAMEIERS OF THE A C C E L E RASR A~ EXPANSION MORTAR MIXES COMPRES~IVE sm APPENDIX4.5 m RESULTS CONCREIE PRISM ASR EXPANSION RESULTS FREmEmAwRESULTS APPENDIX4.3 APPENDIX 4.2 APPENDIX 4.4 APPENDIX 4.
180 DAYS D m ~ OF STRENGTH m -Low-ALKAU CEMENT -PINE GLASS GRADATIONS . CD AND CE GRADATION OF N A T U R A L SANDS A AND B. FB. FH. FINE GLASSES FA. FD AND FE GRADATION OF NATURAL SANDS A AND B.w CEMENT- 28 DAYS SlRENGTH O V E R V I E W -MODERATE-ALKALI CECbENT . FG.CC. FINE GLASSES FF.PHOTOMICROGRAPHOF GLASS A G G R E G A T E .D - 0. FC.180 DAYS S G T H O V E R V I E W -M O D E R A T E .-S102 GRADATION OF NATURALGRAVELS A AND B. COARSE GLASSES CA.6 MM TRPAR'lTIE COMPOS~ON mMIS OF THESYSTEMSCAO-AL~O~-SIO~ AND CAO-NA20. CB. ACCELERATED GRADATION.90 DAYS STRENGTH OVERVIEW -LOW-ALKAU CEMENT. Fl ANDFJ WATER DEMAND BY GLASS AGGREGATE C O N T E N T WA'IER D E M A N D BY ASHCONTENT WATER DEMAND BY POWDERED GLASS C O N T E N T S'IRENGTHOVERVIEW -LOW-ALKALI CEhlENT- 28 DAYS S'IRENGIH OVERVIEW -LOW-ALKALd CEMENT.
MODERATE-ALKALI CEMENTNo GLASS D~PMENTO SF m m .1095 DAYS .MODERATE-ALKALI CEMENT48% GLASS DWFWENT GLASS OFR I S E 'N G H I -MODERATE-- CEMENT - RELATION OF STRENGTH TO GLASS CON'IENT AND FORM RELATION OF S~~ TO h H CONTENT AND FORM --THAW STIFFNESS DEGRADATION -COARSE GLASS GRADATIONS FkEEE-THAWSTIFFNESS DEGRADATION -FINE GLASS GRADATIONS FREEZE-THAW WEIGHT DEGRADATION -COARSE GLASS GRADATIONS FREEE$THAW WEIGHT DEGRADATION -RNE GLASS FkEEZE-THAW S --THAW GRADATIONS DEGRADATION -FIEIl> TRIAL STIFFNESS DEGRADATION -POWDERED GLASS SERIES Y C BY ~POWDERED GLASS STIFFNESS LOSS BEIWEEN 10 AND 350 C CONTENT C O N C R E I E PRISM EXPANSION BY GLASS CONTENT- 28 DAYS CONCRE-IE PRISM EXPANSION BY GLASS CONTENT-365 DAYS C O N C R E E I PRISM EXPANSION BY GLASS CONTENT-730 DAYS CONCRETE PRISM EXPANSION BY GLASS CONTENT .D W P M E N T OF S'IRENGlH -LOW-ALKALI CEMENT -COARSE GLASS GRADAlIONS DEVELOPMENT OF S m m -POWDERED GLASS SERIES D~PMENTS OF m m .
ACCELERATED ASR EXPANSION -GLASS WlTH N O W G A T I O N ACCELERATED ASR EXPANSION -FLY ASHES F2 AND F3.E mA D - GLASS AGGREGATE AIR-EFLY ASH AD- REQUIRED BY TYPE AND CONTENT OF REQUIRED BY C0NlENT OF A I R A D POWDERED GLASS WA'IER DEMAND WITH AND WlTHOUTHRWR BY GLASS CONlENT EXPANSION TO FLY ASH CONTENT RELATION OF CONCREIE GRADATTONS OF CEMENTS. FLY ASHES. AND POWDERED GLASS . POWDERED GLASS RELITION OF S'IRENGT'H TO ASH CONTENT-MODFRATE ALKAI-J REQUIRED BY TYPE AND CONTENT OF MrxEs A I R .
AGGREGATE SPECIFIC G R AAND ~ ABSORBTIONS GLASS AGGREGATE S ~ ~ ~ MD A ER SY C~ONS ASTM C618 C L A s s r n c ~ n PARAME~FRS o~ SUMMARY OF ME DESIGN SPEC~CATIONS ASR PER~RMANCE AT 28 DAYS ASR PERFORMANCEAT 365 DAYS ASR PERFORMANCEAT 730 DAYS ASR PERFORMANCEAT 1095 DAYS COMPONENTS OF STRENGTH EFl3m-S STRENGIHSWlTH WASHED VS. UNWASHED GLASSAGGREGATE CEMENT AND POWDERED GLASS Chmxnmsncs FLY ASH C H A R A ~ S ' I I C S V ~ L PARAMEIERS E OF THEGLASS-FLY ASHS E R J E S OF THE POWDERED GLASS SERIES VAFUABLEPARAMEIERSOF'~-IEFIEIDTRIAL VAR~ABLE -P VARIABLE PARAME~ERS OF THE ACCEURA'IED ASR EXPANSION SERE3 GLASS-FLY ASH SERIES MIX AND FRESHCONCRE~E RESULTS FED TRIAL MIX AND FRESH CONCREIE RESULTS POWDERFDGLASS SERIES MIXAND FRESH C O N C RRESULTS . GLASS-FLY ASH SERIES COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH RESum FIElD TRIAL COMPRESSIVE S T R E N G T HRESULTS J?ED TRIALCORE STRENGTH RESULTS POWDERED GLASS SERIES COMPRESSIVE S'IRENGIHRESULTS FIElD TRIALTENSILE S'IRENGIH RESULTS POWDERED GLASS SEIUESTENSILE STRENGIH RESULTS GLASS-FLY ASH SERIES CONCREIE PRISMASR EXPANSION RESULTS FIELD TRIAL CONCREIE PRISM ASR EXPANSION RESULTS STIFFNESS RETAINED BY GLASS-FLYASH SERIES DURING F/'T TESTING .
5 A4.A4.1 WEIGHT RETAINED BY FIEIDTRIAL DURING F/I' TESTING 155 156 156 157 STIFFNESS RETAJNFDBY POWDERED GLASS SERIES DURING F/T TES~G W E I G H T RETAINED BY POWDEREDGLASS R ERIES DURING FJr TESIWG ACCELERAm ASR EXPANSION RESULTS xiv .4 A220.127.116.11.5.6 A4.
limited. Third Shipmnt of Coarse Glass Washed. silica) A1203 (aluminum oxide. Second Shlpmnt of Fine Glass Washed. First Shipment of Fine Glass Unwashed form of Glass FA Washed.Cement Chemists' Notation -used throughout thesis C CaO (calcium oxide. First Shipment of P8 Fine Glass Washed. lime) Si02 (silicon dioxide. sulfate) C02 (carbon dioxide. carbonate) Glass Asmegate Stocks CA Washed. alumina) F F%03 (femc oxide) H20 (water. Gradation #1 Ground in Laboratory fiom Glass FC Washed. hydrate) SO3 (sulfur trioxide. Second Shlpment of Coarse Glass Washed. Second Shlpment of P8 Fine Glass Washed. standardized o n in Accelerated ASR Series of Fine Glass for use CB cc CD CE FA FB FC . Blend of Glasses CC and CE Washed. First Shipment of Coarse Glass Unwashed form of Glass CA Washed. Glass FG with P50 fiaction discarded Washed. Gradation #2 Ground in Laboratory fiom Glass FC Unwashed form of Glass FG Washed.
e-g. generally either Na or K (or Na20 or K20) the ratio CaO:Si02in a particular C S n H gel i. while 25% of the total cemntitious materials is £lyash xO/o/y%. . OOEb indicates that only fine aggregate was replaced with glass. C A K indcates that Glass CA was used to replace a portion of the coarse aggregate.g. 20%/25% indicates that 20% of the total aggregate is replaced by glass aggregate.R20 CSH .. shorthand for CSmH gel the quantities of glass aggregate and fly ash used in a particular mix..g.658[K20] generic notation for an alkali mtal or alkali oxide. while Glass FG was used to replace a portion of the fine %gregate.20%/25% the combition of coarse and fine glass aggregate used in a particular mix. OOEG indicates that no coarse glass was used. e. while Glass FC was used to replace a portion of the fine aggregate.D wlc W/(C man particle size of a particular aggregate fiaction (diameter) the ratio water:cemnt by weight +n the ratio water:(cemnt + tly ash) by weight equivalent normality of Na20= [Na20]+ 0. R+.e.. e... C:S is equal to the coefficient x in the stoichiomtric expression Na20e R.g. e.
Alternative methods must be found for utilization of this waste glass. Johnston 1974. about 20%.A problem receiving increasing attention in the United States is disposal of solid waste. Dept. or mixed color waste streams which are difficult to separate into useful raw glass stocks. S. Waste glass has been heavily targeted for recycling efforts. and among the most popular methods of dealing with this problem is recychg.studying the mechanical properties of the resulting concrete and investigating the alkali-silica reaction (ASR). amounting to 13. only 2. and the likely ability of construction applications to afford allowances for slight variation in composition or f o m Such use of waste glass has been previously studied with regard to asphalt and fWbase course material. proposals within the Wisconsin state legislature would prohibit the disposal of glass containers in landfills and incinerators if enacted (1989 Wisconsin Act 335).6 million tons. the use of glass aggregate produces highly unsatisfactory concrete due to ASR and poor strength developmnt (Johnston 1974). of Commerce 1993). Their findings may be summarized as follows: In many cases. was successfully recycled (U. Of the possible alternative uses for this glass. the capacity for bulk use in the construction industry. recycling into construction materials is among the most attractive because of the large volu~ne of material involved. Several reasons for this include impurities which are chflicult to remove. The use of glass as aggregate in portland cement concrete has been studied by a number of other researchers (Figg 198 1. Of this amount. Schmidt and Saia 1963) . for example. Not all waste glass can be recycled into new glass for several reasons. prohibitive shipping costs to glass manufacturing plants.2million tons in 1990. though this depends on the type of glass . The amount of glass requiring disposal continues to grow.
cement content. glass aggregate may perform satisfactorily. exhibiting a pessimum relationship for particle size (Figg 1981). and because waste glass was considered almost exclusively as coarse . The amount of expansion associated with surface cracking varies considerably. with the concrete matrix only acting as a solution medium (Figg 1981). The most reactive glasses have a high content of either boron or alkali oxides (Figg 198 1). Below a critical value of cement content and equivalent alkali content. and the chemical composition of the glass and fly ash. but the critical value for a particular glass aggregate would have to be determined by test (Johnston 1974). Johnston suggests that the minimum amount of fly ash required for a given case might depend upon cement alkali equivalent. S o n types of glass are able to supply sufficient quantities of both silica and alkalis for a deleterious reaction to take place. and have substantial effects on their reactivities in concrete.03% at an age of one year under unaccelerated conditions might be a distinguishing value (Johnston 1974). Replacement of cement by 25% to 30% fly ash by weight appears to be an effective means of ensuring satisfactory performance. The value of the existing documented research is limited because of sparse and generally negative results. Using only a small proportion of glass aggregate does not adequately limit ASR development if no other measures are used to control the reaction (Johnston 1974). The compositions of various types and colors of container glass vary greatly.aggregate used (Schmidt and Saia 1963). Concrete with a mixture of frne and coarse crushed glass exhibits slightly smaller expansion than a concrete with only coarse crushed glass (Johnston 1974). though a value of 0. ASR involving glass aggregate is qualitatively different from ASR involving more porous natural aggregates.
washing and crushing.addressing concerns of contamination. possibly arising from macroscopic stresses and defects in the glass. Photographs of glass and sand particles of several sizes are shown in Figures 1.1 .6. Smaller particles exhibit a more regular shape and reduced fiiability.3 aggregate. and use of the aggregate by construction personnel. and more important for practical use.1.5 r n r n ) and powdered (40ym) glass. as well as considerable £riability. f l a t surface texture. The range of glass types studied was beyond those previously considered. Waste glass aggregate particles smaller than about 3 mm have a sub-angular shape and a smooth. either as manufactured or as crushed. Particles larger than about 3 mrn exhibit a plate-like structure remaining from their original form as glass containers. The problems studied arise from the properties of waste glass as they differ from those of natural aggregates. Admixtures used in this study included high-range water reducer. Actual municipal waste streams have been used throughout the research . The present research expanded on these past efforts with further consideration of material likely to be used in the practical application of waste glass. particularly using frnely crushed (<I . The effectiveness of these fly ashes a s a preventative measure for ASR and the practical effects of the admixtures and the condition of the waste glass were evaluated in the laboratory and in field trials. . air-entraining admixture and three different sources of fly ash.
photo file - - .photo - file ..
- .4.6 M M photo f i l e FIGURE 1.PHOTOMICROGRAPHOF GLASS AGGREGATE.3. . D 0. .photo f i l e FIGURE 1.~oToMIcROGRAPH OF NATURAL SAND.6 MM - . D 0.
photo file .photo - file ..
(1987) dernonstrated that the reactivity is particularly dependent upon the chemical composition of the glass. The interlocking shear strength between the aggregate and the cement paste is expected to be less with glass than with natural aggregate. et. the principal difference in the structure of the resulting concrete. The chemical bond. and possibly more sipficant changes are the differences in pore solution chemistry caused by glass aggregate. which is dependent upon the gradation of the particle distribution. T h e properties of interest in evaluating the effect of glass aggregate on the structure of concrete are strength and bze-thaw durability as industry standard indicators of performance. and which may be expected to take part in the alkali-silica reaction as described by Hobbs (1988). which may cause deleterious expansions and strains in the concrete structure. other. Tang. if any.Waste glass is an amorphous or cryptocrystalline silica mineral. ASR must be evaluated and possibly mitigated. Among the reactions of interest is the alkali-silica reaction (ASR). becoming notable when the ratio ([SiQ]+[Naz0]):([CaO]+[A1203]) exceeds 1 and increasing sharply when it is greater than about 10 to 20. including the speciiic surface. Besides the possible Werences in physical structure caused by glass aggregate. is expected to be the bond f o d between the aggregate and cement paste. which may interact with the hydration of cement paste. In addition. al. . When waste glass is used as aggregate. and therefore its strength and durability. between the aggregate and the cement paste might be greater for glass aggregate due to its amorphous surface potentially allowing pomlanic behavior. the hbility of crushed glass particles may weaken the concrete structure. and other sigN6cant changes in pore solution chemistry may have to be evaluated before glass will be viable for use as aggregate in portland cement concrete. The reactivity of amorphous glass has been demonstrated by researchers to depend upon the surface characteristics of the particles. container glass may typically have a ratio of about 6 to 10 and is thus expected to be reactive.
or other products used to m o w the mix. thereby affecting the working. Glass aggregate might affect the use and control of water during concrete mixing. the additional costs of grinding. w/(c +fi. may be used to produce concrete which will perform satisfactorily at early to moderate ages and as well as similar natural aggregate concrete at later ages. It is hypothesized that waste glass aggregate.50. and finishing behavior of the concrete. the costs of glass aggregate concrete will eventuaJly require consideration. along with the additional costs or savings which might come kom the use of fly ash. may be used as an adequate predictor of the strength and durability of concrete incorporating waste glass aggregate at wl(c +fi between 0. grading. and the costs of additional water reducer. Variations in glass waste streams might be sigdkant.35 and 0. and washing the glass.Other technical considerations also enter into an evaluation of the usability of glass aggregate. airentraining. to overcome any perception of glass aggregate as an inferior or unsafe material. or other admixtures will have to be included in such an analysis. forming. and depending on the amount of variation found to be in typical waste streams. graded between RlOO and P8 and replacing up to 50% of the fine aggregate. the aesthetics and public acceptance of the resulting concrete will require some consideration. While an obvious benefit would be the savings of glass disposal costs. Prehnary results (Cramr and de la Cruz 1994) suggest that concrete incorporating waste glass aggregate of an optimum form shows less strength and durability at early ages and . Finally. the W/(C +fi usable in pavement and practically obtainable with the addition of high-range water reducer. powdered waste glass. though this is not within the scope of this research. The ratio water:(cement + fly ash) by weight. depending on the sensitivity of the resulting concrete to small changes in composition or characteristics of the glass aggregate. Also.
when the waste glass is graded as expressed above and processed as detailed in this research. and is used as 20% or less of the total aggregate. and usability in the laboratory and under field conditions for pavement applications. powdered waste glass. regardless of the form of the glass. by the appropriate use of mineral admixtures.a somewhat lower cement replacement level than that found necessary by other researchers including Johnston (1974). It is also hypothesized that powdered waste glass ( 4 0 pm) may be used to supplement cement in a concrete mixture containing waste glass aggregate. fieezelthaw and ASR durability. and chemical admixtures that produce concrete with adequate strength. Because of its amorphous silica composition. The objectives of this research are: 1. however. Identify gradations and characteristics of crushed waste glass. It is also clear that waste glass aggregate is highly alkali-ska reactive. Fly ash of the type and composition detailed in this research may be used to mitigate ASR deterioration at cement replacement levels of 10% to 20% when used with glass graded as above . the proportion of glass to natural aggregate has only a secondary effect on the strength and freeze-thaw durability of the concrete. in agreement with previous researchers' conclusions (Johnston 1974). . fly ash.more at later ages than similar concrete using only natural aggregate. The ASR deterioration may be effectively mitigated. particularly at early to moderate ages (less than 180 days). it is expected that it wdl mitigate ASR in much the same way that fly ash might. Further.
curing. control of mix water. freezeJthaw resistance. 2. Glass proportions of 0% to 90% of the total aggregate and four fly ash compositions in proportions of 0% to 35% of the total cementitious material are employed. This is undertaken to identify changes in the behavior of the concrete under field moisture. mixing.10 . and use conditions. etc. entrained air contents. and to identify potential production problems (e. and resistance to ASR deterioration at ages from one month to three years as indicators of quality. and limiting water contents as possible m a n s . temperature. air entrainment. Determine the effects of waste glass aggregate and powdered waste glass on the strength and fieendthaw durability of concrete. and several water reducing and air-entraining admixtures are also included in these trials. Both coarse and fine waste glass gradations and several different glass preparation methods are included in the trials. 3. D o c m n t the alkali-silica reactivity of waste glass aggregate. finishing. exposure. The strength and durability of field trials of waste glass aggregate concrete will be evaluated by comparison with typical specification and use requirements and by comparison with corresponding laboratory specimens. workability.g..considering the addition of fly ash or powdered glass. Various water contents. limiting cemnt a l k a l ilevels.). Evaluating various combinations of glass aggregate and other constituents will include consideration of strength. and determine m a n s of mitigating this ASR . .
its susceptibility to fracture particularly observable in an examination of the fracture of concrete containing the more friable coarse glass particles. fly ashes and finely powdered waste glass is necessary. Finally. particularly at later ages. because mitigation of ASR generally requires use of fly ash. which may contribute some strength. and changes in the cement paste caused by the presence of glass aggregate. The strength of the glass aggregate or lack thereof. To allow the application of glass in a wide range of pavement concretes. freeze-thaw durability. .The measured strength behavior and the development of strength will allow differentiation of several effects of glass aggregate: The increased water requirement to utilize waste glass aggregate .observable in the varying water content necessary to achieve constant workability with varying glass and fly ash proportions. and the variabihty of fly ash's effects and its interactions with waste glass may be as significant as the effects of the waste glass itself. the effects that are clearly present but cannot be attributed to either changing water content or the strength of the glass aggregate itself may be regarded as intrinsic to the behavior of glass aggregate in the concrete matrix. The effects of fly ash on strength will be addressed.. and ASR in laboratory experimentation. water-reducing admixtures. i. These interactions will be studied in terms of their effects on water demand. These would include differences between the natural aggregate-cement bond and the glass aggregate-cement bond.e. From preliminary results this appears to account for a large portion of the observed differences in strength (Cramer and de la Cruz 1994). strength. the possibility of a pozzolanic reaction between the cement paste and the glass aggregate. some understanding of interactions between waste glass and air-entraining admixtures. though this is not likely a contributing cause of the observed differences. .
.12 Documentation of the current state of theoretical understanding of the nature of the ASR and its operation in this particular application m a y shed some light on the significant pore solution chemistry. Quantification of typical amounts of expansion at various ages and the effects of glass gradation and processing procedures on ASR expansion m a y allow more consistent application of ASR mitigation measures in waste glass aggregate concrete.
and on the cementitious materials. because h e water tends to bleed to the paste-aggregate interface and create voids which are then f i l l e d with weaker clusters of Ca(OH)2 crystals (Roberts 1989). The strength developed by a concrete matrix &pends upon the porosity of the concrete matrix and the strength of the paste-aggregate bond. The properties of concrete depend both on the overall arrangement and structure of the mineral matrix. The total combined gradation of the coarse and tine aggregate. a major factor in determining the porosity and thereby the strength of the concrete is the gradation of the aggregate and other mineral constituents of the concrete mixture. The usual masure of concrete quality. Besides the wlc ratio. fly ash. etc. Durability. cement. cement and other mineral admixtures ultimately determines the packing density of the total concrete mixture. is itself a major determining factor of the porosity. is at least as important as compressive strength in the performance of real concrete structures and pavements.HYDRATION Concrete is a composite of various mineral phases (aggregates. w/c.the ratio waterxement by weight. the ability to maintain structure and strength over time. microsilica.) with sigmficant porosity and water either fdhg pores or bound into hydrated mineral phases. because the water which remains fiee fiom the cemnt hydration occupies volume within the matrix and creates porosity. though it may be necessary to use plasticizers (primarily surfactant deflocculating agents) to allow the finest particles of fly ash and silica fume to contribute to an efficient packing structure. Two possible . The paste-aggregate bond strength is in turn dependent upon the texture of the aggregate surface and also upon the porosity and wlc ratio. The strength and durability of concrete comes fiom the development of a matrix of hydrated cemnt which binds these mineral phases together.
and the quality of the cement-aggregate bond (Bjegovic.&O3. but the C:S ratio may be substantially lower in the presence of reactive silica or fly ash. 1987). The pore solution has thus been enriched with CaO. permeability. the composition of the pore fluid develops along the labeled d~ssolution line. and will therefore precipitate from the resulting supersaturated solution. while the pore solution from which it precipitates will be left with a composition P. The composition of solid CH is fixed while the composition of CSH may vary with C:S ratios typically ranging between 1.k2o3 (C4AF). and dissolution will proceed along a line through P. the solution becomes supersaturated with CSH. and while in solution CaO and SiO2 will hydrate to form calciumsilicate-hydrate gel (CSH) and calcium hydroxide (CH). al.durability failure mechanisms that are most s i p k m t for pavement concrete with glass aggregate are ASR. represented by an arbitrary point S on the diagram. As C3S dissolves. 3Ca0. CSH will precipitate with a composition Q. as P lies to the right of the original dissolution line. and freedthaw damage. The cement compounds are soluble in water. COMPOS~ON AND MICROSTRUCTURE Cement is composed of 3CaO-Si02 (C3S). Upon crossing line AI. a problem particular to silica aggregates which will be discussed in depth in the next section. et. When a critical degree of supersaturation is reached.1 (Brown 1989). preferentially at nucleation sites (Neville 1981). Until dynamic equiliium is reached. Both CSH and CH are less soluble than their constituents. the composition of the pore solution may extend metastably along the line IL.Si02 (C2S). The effects of various materials on C:S may be illustrated with the solubility interaction dngrarn for Si02 and CaO shown in Figure 2.0. parallel to the original dissolution.AkO3 (C3A) and 4Ca0. but the . Freedthaw durability has been found to depend upon several key factors: entrained air.4 and 2. This process of developing a supersaturated solution and precipitating CSH with C:S becoming progressively higher will continue until the composition of the solution reaches point I. 2Ca0.
leaving s o m excess Ca(OH)2. T h e pore solution composition may settle into a dynamic equilibrium anywhere between A and I.1. but to the right of A The effect of a pozzolan. w It is clear. with a shghtly steeper dissolution line. (BROWN 1989) The hydration of C2S proceeds similarly. about 24 hours after mixing begins (Brown 1989). that the presence of a pozzolan. initially intersecting the line A1 to the left of B.SH and CH may precipitate stoichioxmtridly h m the pore solution. contriiting reactive silica. approaching h m the right. and its availabhty or reactivity or tim= will affect the composition of both the pore solution and the CSH geL . may also be illustrated with the use of Figure 2. S O L U B IN'IERAc~oN ~ DIAGRAM FOR S I AND ~ CAO. with I being the case where all (currently) available SiQ is incorporated into CSH. leaving som: excess SiQ..dynamic e q u i h h m will eventually settle at t h e point I. and the composition hally settles again at point I. the pore solution composition continues mtastably along IL. thus. where CI. 0 " "20 J Mol % Ca o CaO FIGURE 2.1. while A represents the case where all available Ca(OH)? is incorporated into CSH. The usual pattern is that I is approached h m the left.
One of the essential roles of the allcalis in ASR is thus to raise the pH of the pore solution.The alkali-silica reaction (ASR) is a reaction between silica (SO2) and hydroxide ions (OH] which forms an expansive alkali-silica hydrate gel. et. usually facilitated by a substantial concentration of alkalis. however. This mechanism of expansion has been verified by Gillott and Beddoes (1981) by analysis of changes in refractivity indices of opal undergoing reaction. because Si02is relatively insoluble in neutral and acidic environments. The consistent mitigation of ASR continues to be hampred.. T h e pessimum content of an aggregate is that amount of aggregate (e. al.. ' High concentrations of OH. expressed as kg of reactive aggregate per m3 of concrete) which causes the largest ASR expansion. rather than simply causing increased expansion with . by lack of understanding of certain key aspects of the reaction.in concrete pore solutions are caused by the presence of Na' and K ions. and deficiencies in current test mthods. A phenomnon which has been observed and recogwed by a number of researchers is what is called the 'pessimum' behavior of many reactive silica aggregates. while Ludwig (1981) suggests 85%). and moisture for the gel to imb1Ibe and expand (a requiremnt of at least 80% relative humidity has been established by Stark. soluble) silica.e. T s o m aggregates showing pessirnum behavior.g. Researchers have observed that either h e reason for increasing or decreasing the aggregate content fiom the pessimum reduces ASR. ASR deterioration depends upon the presence of reactive (i. because of the high solubility coefficients of NaOH and KOH. capable of imbibing moisture and thereby producing sufficient expansive pressure to cause substktial cracking and deterioration of concrete. a high OHconcentration. but quite soluble in solutions with high OH' concentrations (Lane 1991). (1993) and Hobbs(1988).
is not definitely known. Na. in fact. lithium has been shown by a number of researchers (Stark. the pessimum proportion may be due to production of large amounts of gel which blocks pores and prevents the ingress of NaOH into the interior of the specimen (Shayan 1992). et al. al. The osmotic potential may be higher for a gel with a high alkali content (Diamond 1975).e. less commonly fiom aggregates or the external l k a l i s in fly ash or aggregates are ini* environment. offsetting the increased quantity of gel produced. B6rub6.to ASR may corm fiom a number of sources. then as the pessimum proportion is exceeded. the potential difference involved in the hydration of water into such a gel may be higher. among others) to have a mitigating rather than a contributing effect on ASR. 1993. most commonly the cement. In the accelerated test. but rather only be used for establishing safe upper limits for use of an aggregate (below the pessirnum content).increased aggregate content. if alkah is necessary for the formation of a reactive gel. . K. Alkalis are properly those elements occupying the first column of the periodic table: Li. The alkalis which contribute. the alkali will become too dilute for much expansion to take place. both because of their common o&urrence as constituents in cement and aggregates and because of their demonstrated role in ASR. though there are several good theories as to why expansion may decrease beyond the pessirnum content of reactive aggregate given below. (1995b) hkewise suggest that the accelerated test not be used for evaluation of the pessirnum proportion of a given aggregate. The alkalis of concern are sodium and potassium. i. This would suggest that increasing the silica content while keeping the akah content constant will result in progressively kss osmotic gels. The a bound into glassy mineral phases. the fly ash or other mineral admixture. etc. Diamond 1975. It may be due to an optimum R20:Si02ratio at the pessirnum content. Other a l k a l i shave not been demonstrated to be problematic.. et.
022 molesiL) (Stark. For this reason. = ma201 + 0. most alkahs are bound within the mineral phases. the alkalis in cement will nearly all enter solution eventually. It is only in the fine gradations of cement.60% .0. or may do so only very slowly as the £lyash dissolves. alkalis in whatever chemical combination they originate are usually quanti6ed by the equivalent normality of Na20 (equivalent Na2O = Na20.50 has an alkali concentration = 0.339(Na20e of cement)/(w/c) + 0. et al. In any case. 1995b). and the mineral phases must dissolve for the a l k a l i s to enter solution.7 rnmoledL and pH = 13. et al. on the other hand.7 (BkruM.90% >0.00%. as most all of the cement dissolves in a concrete of usual wlc.60% 0. Typical total alkali contents (Na20.50% .which must dissolve for the alkalis to become available.658[K20]). significant contributions from aggregates are rare. 1993).4 are low-alkali cement moderate-alkali cement high-alkali cement fly ash 0. on a bulk concrete basis (percent by weight of the concrete or mass of allcalk per m3 of concrete). The alkalis present in fly ash.0. The alkali content of a concrete mixture may be expressed by the alkali content of the constituents (percent by weight of the cement and fly ash).90% 0. Thus.40% . A normal cement paste made with a cement containing = 1% Na20. may not enter solution.5. due to the relatively low specific surface area of normal coarse or f i n e aggregates and therefore low availability for dissolution. In cement. or indirectly by the OH. Much . and a w/c ratio = 0.concentration (or pH) of the resulting alkali hydroxide solution (OH' concentration (normality) = 0. fly ash or similarly graded materials that sufficient dissolution occurs for sigmficant alkalis to be released.
of fly ash be considered available may be too conservative for low-alkali ashes and not conservative for high-alkali ashes.3. (or 0. Duchesne and BCruE's results indrcate that the amount of alkalis released by fly ash is a function of the alkali content of the fly ash.64 mmolesL) will satisfy the accelerated mortar bar test method. Jones (1988) found that the viscosity of the ASR gel may depend on the ratio of alkalis to SiO2. and thus never contniutes its alkalis to the pore solution. This may be an electrochemical effect of the low C:S gel produced in the pozzolanic reaction (Scrivener 1989). Hobbs' (1986a) suggestion that 17% of the total Na20. Low C:S gel which is developed in the presence of a highly reactive pozzolan as discussed above. many researchers have produced results which suggest that more alkalis are incorporated into the resulting pozzolanrc products than are released by fly ash dissolution. this is also in agreement with Scrivener's model. with gels having a low alkaksilica ratio being more fluid. because most will have already participated in hydration and pozzolanic reactions (Duchesne and BCruE 1994a). Scrivener has found that the surface charge of CSH is positive for C:S above about 1. .3. In light of these researchers' conclusions. BCruE. are not necessarily available for participation in ASR. but not on the akah content of the fly ash. while the amount of alkali which the pozzolanic reaction removes fiom solution may depend on the pozzolanic activity of the fly ash. would thus be much more capable of entrapping alkalis electrochemically. and negative for C:S below 1. The alkalis which do find their way into solution. Particularly for pozzolanic materials such as fly ash. meanwhile. (1995b) found that all mortar mixtures capable of reducing the alkali concentration to under 2% Na20.of the fly ash in a typical concrete never dissolves. et d.
ROLEOF WATER The availability of water throughout the concrete matrix is required for ASR to proceed: to satisfy stoichiometric requiremnts to develop the ASR gel itself. In addition. Also affecting the availability of water are the porosity and permeability h e porosity of the matrix.g. On the other hand.. to provide a medium through which reactants may be transported to the reaction site.crystalline structure. The non-porous structure of glass aggregate may slow the 'reaction for some particles limiting the reaction to the surface of the particle. These opposing influences - of water content may produce a pessirnurn phenomenon associated with water content in addition to that associated with aggregate fineness and proportion. the ion collcentration of the pore solution is inversely proportional to the d c ratio. t determines the mean distance of cemnt paste to be found between a reactive aggregate particle and the capillary pore system. have a microporous structure that allows the reaction to take place through much of the v o l of ~ the aggregate (Gillott and Beddoes 1981). Many natural reactive aggregates.or crypto. higher porosity does provide space for the ASR products to expand into without exerting stress on the concrete matrix. . Besides allowing bulk movement of water through the matnx. possibly exposing the concrete to greater ASR stresses than if the strength had developed more slowly. opal. while also making the reaction much more surface area dependent. e. and to develop expansive pressure through continued uptake of water by the expansive gel. and L e m e r (1981) has suggested that rapid hydration of a low wlc concrete will allow little ASR during the initial plastic phase and simultaneously increase the ion concentration in the remaining pore water.ROLEOF SILICA The silica aggregates which may take part in ASR are generally those with an amorphous or a highly disordered. Such a structure will dissolve readdy in high pH environments and has greater surface reactivity and susceptibility to surface disruption and breakage.
This gel has been d e m i by Regourd. while the ultimate ASR expansion is decreased. This observation that accelerated ASR is usually accompanied by reduced ultimate expansion is in agreement with Jones (1988) and others.The effects of water reducers on ASR have been studied by Lenzner (1981). and it may be noted that the possibility of this reaction and its rate will depend on the available concentrations of reactive silica.2 and 1. (198 1) as having a structure and texture to CSH developed from cemnt hydration. leading to cracking and loss of stitkess and strength. based on work by Chatterji. the degree to which the concrete is able or not able to accommodate gel expansion without being strained. . MECHANISM OF EXPANSION AND DJ~ERIoRATIoN The actual ASR deterioration occurs due to the expansive pressure resulting from the absorption of water in the ASR gel eventually overcoming the tensile strength of the concrete matrix. Det-ntal effects due to ASR are dependent upon both the formation of the gel and the uptake of water into t h e gel and to a lesser extent. with observations that ASR is accelerated by water reducers at a given wlc ratio. or have sufficient strength to restrain the ASR gel.O. et al. GEL FORMATION The development of alkali-silica gel may be d e s c n i as a reaction in which alkali ions and hydroxyl ions enter reactive silica grains. Regourd. alkalis and Ca(OH)2 in solution. et al. though with observed C:S ratios between 0. (1989): Reactive silica + 2 Na' + Ca(OH)2 (aq) + aq + Sodium silica complex + ca2'+ aq K? may replace Na' in the above reaction. et al. (1981) have verilied that concrete made from expanded reactive aggregate was able to resist expansion by accommodating reaction products within the pores of the expanded aggregate. leaving behind ca2'.
The rate of migration of silica out of the grain depends on the grain size (for a large grain. Chatterji and Christensen illustrated this effect by developing a characteristic constant K quantlflmg the amount of swelling induced in a standard alkali solution by various fine aggregates. or as the Ca(OH)2 concentration of the pore solution tends to zero. to suggest that the swelling process is analogous with osmosis.OH-. ca2+. thereby precipitating CSH. Jones (1988) and especially Gillott and Beddoes (1981).g.22 There is considerable experhntal evidence. hydrated water versus fire water. They found that K tends to zero as the fineness approaches that of cement. In those cases where expansion is avoided. being dnven by the lower chemical potential of bound. Ludwig (1981) has likewise verified the osmotic mhanism by comparing observed concrete matrix forces with those predicted by osmotic pressure theory. Chatterji and Christensen (1990) have developed a more thorough theory which includes but goes beyond those of Jones and others. but rather a net m a t e d flow into the reactive grain including Na'. e. Jones further divides the swelling behavior into two phases: stage A: gel hydration and swelling stage B: dissipation of gel £tom the generation site He suggests that expansion can only result if stage B is considerably slower than stage A. . otherwise gel will be produced and dispersed with no development of mechanical pressure on the concrete matrix. silica has to move M h e r to leave the grain) and on the concentration of Ca2+in the pore solution outside of the grain to react with (continued migration of silica depends on the availability of Ca2+ the exiting silica. suggesting that the expansion of ASR gel is due not simply to absorption of water.. On the other hand. and H20. they suggest that it is because in those cases silica migrates out of the reactive grain as quickly material moves in. otherwise silica concentration reaches equhbrium and migration stops).
particularly when low alkali cement is used to mitigate the reaction. because t h e material can then be made identical to that prepared in practice. Chemical tests. which exposes mortar prisms to a standard moist environment and monitors the expansion developed due to MR. as being too lenient and being limited to evaluating aggregate in isolation. CONCRETE AND MORTAR PRISMTEST~ ~ T H o D s T h e consensus among most researchers is that tests should be conducted with concrete or mortar prisms. for example. water content. mineral admixtures. The expansions m u r e d for concrete prisms have still been found to be affected by the dimension of the prism (Curtil and Habita 1994. is that the ideal situation would be to test concrete prisms. such as ASTM C289. What most all researcher agree on. Rogers and Hooton 1991). concrete prisms tests are rarely used in practical research for these . The effects of the cement. though they are not always effective in practice (Stark. This test has also been found to be somewhat lenient. The primary drawbacks to concrete prism testing are storage requirements for the relatively large specirm=nsand the long period of time for the unaccelerated reaction to manifest itselfreasons. and other variable paramters of a concrete m i x cannot be addressed by these tests. 1993).Several methods have historically been available for the evaluation of ASR and means of mitigating it. et al. however. et al. (1993). most notably by Stark. expose reactive aggregate to a standard solution of alkali hydroxides. This and similar tests have been criticized recently. The prism test in longest use is ASTM C227.therefore standardized prisms should still be used to allow comparisons between different researchers' results. and no extrapolation of results is necessary from the test m i x and test materials to those of the field concrete. then use spectroscopy or other analytical chemical methods to evaluate the progress of the reaction. this test generally gives good results with low aJkali cement.
found. et al. the NaOH pulled the OH. while at high NaOH concentrations. et al. Dubberke (1994) has found that the angularity of the aggregate used in the test has a significant effect because an extremely angular aggregate may limit packing and increase porosity at a given wlc ratio. considering that the test specimens are completely immersed in a high-alkali NaOH solution.concentration up regardless of the cemnt alkali content. .A test which has been developed more recently by Davies and Oberholster (1987) and which has now been adopted by ASTM as C1260. BCrub6. and the most critical mechanisms involved when fly ash mitigates ASR are alkali dilution and entrapmnt of alkali ions in CSH (B6rub6. by weight of the cement. that even in the accelerated method the alkali concentration of the mortar pore water correlates well with the expansion results for all samples. It is now among the most common accelerated methods used for evaluating potential aggregates. Several researchers have further defined the paramters which may be expected to affect the results of this test. add the caveat that the test may be inaccurate at hgh alkali contents. though they speculate that it might if moderate concentrations of NaOH were used.25% Na20. B6rub6. however.concentration down regardless of the cement alkali content. 1995b). and determined that cement composition does not have any sigdcant mfluence. This test appears to be capable of determining the required quantity and characteristics of fly ash necessary to mitigate ASR. et al.) It is somwhat surprising to many that this accelerated test works to obtain consistent results with fly ash. do. is an accelerated mark bar test using a concentrated alkali hydroxide solution and an elevated temperature to achieve the acceleration. (They found that at low concentrations of NaOH the NaOH pulled the OH. This indicates that the method is appropriate for testing with fly ash because the rrwhanisms by which mitigation occurs in the test method and in concrete in practice are still the same. Fournier and Berub6 (1991) have documented the effects of WICratio and temperature of testing. and suggest keeping the total alkali content of the bars to no more than 1. however.
The standard Canadian evaluation methods using concrete prisms is regarded as among the most reliable.EVALUA~ OF N TEST RESULTS The allowable limit for ASR expansion to be acceptable is an important consideration with any of these prism test methods. et al. Rogers and Hooton (1991) have studied various storage schemes for concrete prisms. tensile and flexure strength (Curtil and Habita 1994). but not 'immersed. and with a temperature of 38°C gave the most expansion. Some researchers. . cement.0. Their recommndations are between 0. Prisms stored at 23°C in the wet room showed substantially less expansion with some evidence of leaching of alkalis fiom the concrete. Alongside the allowable limits of expansion. (1993).08% and 0. 1995b). particularly compressive. finding that storage in a sealed box with the prism held above water. They noted that it is important to use a reference aggregate as a control and develop a criterion for acceptable expansion based on its performance. 0. particularly the expansion necessary for cracks to develop (approx. et al. and mineral admixtures.05%). Other properties of concrete have been explored as indicators of ASR. with a expansion limit criterion of 0. but have limited use because of the normal variation in these properties due to variation in aggregate.03 . base their recommendations on correlations between observed expansions in laboratory tests and observed performance of corresponding concrete in field applications. particularly with the longer term concrete prism tests. notably Hobbs (1988).04% (BCruM.20% as critical amounts of expansion after 14 days of ASTM C1260 testing. Others. notably Stark. consideration must be given to the environment used in the test. and methods must be used to provide experimntal control of possible environmental variation. base their recommndations on the mechanical properties of the concrete.
There appears to be a critical alkali content below which expansion does not occur (BCrubd. thereby allowing pozzolans more time to enter the hydration reactions and decrease the C:S ratios of the pore solution and the resulting CSH before high C:S ratios are reached. Because of the mitigating ability of air voids.Several methods have been successfully used to mitigate ASR deterioration as reviewed by Gillott and Wang (1993): Pozzolans may reduce the C:S ratio of the pore solution and the resulting CSH. thereby trapping alkalis on their surface and preventing movement of alkalis into reactive silica grains (Duchesne and BCrubd 1994~). Retarders have also been shown to hamper nucleation and growth of Ca(OH)2 and decrease the rate of hydration of C3S and C2S.However. this may only slow the movement of alkalis and slow the reaction without completely stopping it. Retarders may delay the formation of a rigid microstructure sufficiently to allow ASR to proceed to completion without disrupting the concrete matrix. Mineral admixtures may reduce permability and thereby prevent water from reaching and being imbibed by expansive gel. . et al. Air-entraining admixtures may introduce voids which will accommodate the expansive ASR gel -note however that this solution may compromise the ability of the concrete to accommodate kze/thaw cycles. limiting total alkali content in the m i x should mitigate MR. Duchesne and BCrubd (1994a) suggest a limit of 300 kg/m3. comparisons of ASR expansion between airentrained and non-airentrained concretes must be made very cautiously. thus. 1995b). This method may not be reliable because of the difficulty of ensuring that additional alkalis do not enter the concrete at some point during its lifetime. because this electrostatic trapping is weaker than a true chemical bond.
others The fineness of glass w i l l depend upon the grinding method used.s o n positive. because of the different diffusivities of R+. al. al. the morphology of glass (entirely amorphous) may .Stark. If this is correct. al. Introduction of LiOH or certain other alkali salts has been found to mitigate ASR. (1993) have developed a theory that the inner portion of a reactive grain may develop expansive ASR gel while the surface does not.The surfactant properties of air-entraining admixtures and plasticizers may affect the potential gradient between fiee and hydrated water and their influence on surface. The a l k a l icontent of glass may be very sigmficant -note particularly that in light of the theory by Stark. . the effectiveness of a pozzolan both for strength enhancement and for ASR mitigation is known to depend upon fineness. mentioned above. in contrast to fly ash which is often an amorphous layer covering a crystalline core. et. Powdered glass might mitigate ASR by acting as a pozzolan according to the criteria set out by Giott and Wang (1993) and Chatterji and Christensen (1990). Glass is entirely amorphous. There are. probably by poisoning the alkali gel which is necessary for expansion to take place by occupying the molecular positions which Na' and K? would otherwise occupy. but not producing the same expansive properties within the gel (Stark. several notable difference between glass and fly ash as potential pozzolans negative: .ca2+and ASR gel. 1993). with a layer of amorphous silica surrounding a crystalline core. the structure of fly ash. may be an ideal configuration for acting as a pozzolan in mitigating ASR without contributing to ASR itself or contributing the majority of its alkalis to the pore solution.tension forces may reduce the viscosity of ASR gels. This may or may not be an advantage for glass . et. however.be detrimental and may allow nearly all of its alkalis to be released into solution.30% observed by Hobbs (1986a) and corroborated by others. rather than the 10% . et.
after some t k . . strength of a similar cement-only concrete usual& varies from 28 to 90 days. however. though some may gain strength only much later. the silica in the fly ash reacts with the Ca(OH)2 developed by cement hydration and produces secondary CSH by the pozzolanic reaction. first. et al. to act as a line inert material which densifies the packing structure of the cement particles and provides nucleation sites for development of a finer structure of CSH gel. et al.2 to 13. The usual effect for a concrete which has had a portion of its cemnt replaced by fly ash is a sowwhat lower strength at early ages. The age at which a fly ash concrete will equal and begin to exceed the. al. et.3 (Fraay. 1989). The ASTM requirements for fly ash will be discussed with regard to the specific fly ashes used in this experimental program in Chapter 3. and second. 1989). Monz6. which only happens substantdly beyond a pH of about 13. The effect of fly ash on the structure of concrete is. T h i s requires that the glass in the fly ash goes into solution first. followed by a higher ultimate strength at later ages.FLY ASH ASTM standard C618 classifies fly ashes as Class F or Class C with the following general properties: CIasJ? Bituminous Coal Low CaO Content SiO2+ A1203+ FeQ 2 70% History of Good Mitigation of ASR Only Pozzolanic clas& Sub-Bituminous Coal High CaO Content 50% I Si02+ A1203+ FeQ < 70% History of Poor Mitigation of ASR Pozzolanic and Cementitious Both Class F and Class C fly ashes typically have a glassy morphology surrounding and encasing crystalline inclusions (Fraay.
The strength activity of fly ash can be broken down into two distinct effect: nucleation and pozzolanic activity. will slow the dissolution of the fly ash glass network. et al. the onset occurs at later ages (Gopalan 1993).(1994) have found that the effects of fly ash on water demand and workability depend primarily on the fjneness. will accelerate the onset of pomlanic activity. or both. or due to the pozzolanic reaction. because a lower wlc ratio will result in a smaller volume of pore water and higher concentrations of aJl of the chemical species (Fraay. leading to a more rapid dissolution of the glass phases in the fly ash wlc ratio may also contribute to this effect. 1989). Fly ash is able to enhance the strength of concrete simply by providing nucleation sites during the early period because the abundance of nucleation sites refines the structure of the CSH matrix and accelerates its development. for example by Gopalan (1993). The onset of pozzolanic activity by fly ash is itself dependent upon the fly ash:cement ratio in the mix . Babu and Rao (1994) have found that in many cases the contribution of fly ash to strength during the first 7 days of hydration is entirely through promotion of nucleation. and the S i a from the fly ash particle . It has been found by researchers generally. that the early contribution of fly ash to strength development is primarily due to nucleation. et al. while the later contribution is primarily due to pozzolanicity. As the pozzolanic reaction continues into its later stages. the pH of the solution will be increased. et al.as the relative proportion of fly ash is increased. A high alkali content in either the cement or the tly ash. (1989) refers to this period before the onset of pozzolanic activity as the 'incubation' period of the fly ash. shape and particle size distriiution of the ash. but agrees that the fly ash does contribute to strength by acting as precipitation nuclei during this period. because as the alkalis are released into solution. while the crystWamorphous ratio and particle size distribution influence the strength activity. Fraay. either due to nucleation before the onset of pozzolanicity. the pH will tend to increase because of the continuing decrease in h e water. also note that the precipitation of CSH around a fly ash particle. Fraay.
The amount of airentraining admixture required to achieve a particular air content is generally increased by the use of fly ash. FLYASH IN MTIIGATION OF W . Fly ash often decreases the Fly ash also generally affects the amount of water required by the m water requirement by 10 to 20%. and of OH. There are two prevalent reasdm for this effect: The pozzolanic reaction lowers the C:S ratio of the pore solution and the CSH gel leading to electrostatic trapping of alkali ions.fly ash causing a reduction in pemability and thereby limiting water transport . and to a lesser extent its Si02and A1203 contents (Duchesne and Berubi 1994b). which is difficult to measure directly.S I L I C A REACTION The effect of fly ash primarily of interest in this research is mitigation of ASR deterioration. chemically unbound) carbon.&penden= of ASR-mitigating ability on properties of fly ash which do not affect the developmnt of strength or reduction in permeability. Fly ash may increase airentraining admixture requirements by a factor of anywhere fiom 1 to 10 or more for very high k e carbon contents.e. The component of fly ash which actually causes this is tke (i. i x . There are other effects of fly ash which also must be included in a consideration of fly ash as a mineral admixture. especially .ions and c ~ Z 'ions are consumed in the pozzolanic reaction. These effects require carell consideration. but is indicated indirectly by the loss on ignition.. The properties of ily ash which primarily determine its effectiveness in mitigation of ASR are its alkali content. A third possible reason .30 will travel ever further distances before hally combining with CaO and precipitating as hydrated CSH. leading to a more and more fmely re6ned pore structure in the cqncrete. but lower quality Class F ashes have actually been observed to increase the requirement by up to 30%.is difticult to defend because of the clear.
In many areas. on the other hand. coupled with changes in power plant operation in response to environmental regulation and market forces. fly ash is more properly a e m a i n s available at cost or valuable by-product and not a waste product at all. the coal power industry is moving to a scheme of marketing hrgh quality. and the typical gradation of a silica fume (presented only for comparison. though substantially coarser than silica furne. . Increasing demand for high quality fly ash. is becoming of lower quality and exhiiiting more variability.e. controlled fly ash at sigmkant markup fiom the (negative) cost of the raw material. In these cases. to which the glass might otherwise be chemically comparable. along with those of the cemnts and fly ashes used. as they may dramatically affect the procedures required in handling concrete in practice.when using some of the poorly controlled Class F ashes.2 also ilIustrate the similarities and differences between the various materials. both fiom a single sources and between sources and regions (Mehta 1989). might fill the niche of a lowcost waste material able to act as a Class F pozzolan with low variability. is another consideration. The gradation of the powdered glass. mixed color container glass ground to cemnt fineness or h e r . POWDJZRED WASIEGIASS Powdered waste glass. The fly ash which r for a nominal charge. The gradation of the glass used in this research is comparable to that of a fine fly ash.. i. The chemical composition of waste glass is also detailed in Appendix 3.1. The availability of fly ash. especialEy high quality ash. has increased the cost of high quality fly ash and increased the quantity of low quality ash used in concrete applications. The tripartite plots of the systems Ca0-AlzQ-Si02 and Ca0-Na20e-Si@ in Figure 2. those of the cements and fly ashes used. not used in this research) are given in Appendix 3. and of a typical silica furne for comparison.1.
-SIG. .2. . Beside their composition. TRIPARTITECOMPOS~IION PLOTSOF THE SYS'IEMS CAO-&O~-SIG AND CAO-NA~O. . .CaO F3 PC 0 ' F ~ v A s u F 3 Poworrro GUSS F3 SF . it would not be expected to develop the characteristic behaviors of silica fume which are dependent on these properties: enhanced densifkation of the transition zone. the morphology and structure of t h e respective materials is important to an understanding of their behavior in concrete: Cement Fly Ash Waste G l a s s Silica Funr= Ground Crystalline Precipitated Amorphous surrounding a Crystalline Core Ground Amorphous Precipitated h r p h o u s It is expected that the action of these respective materials in concrete will depend on more than simply their compositions. Powdered waste glass is similar in composition and morphology to silica fume. however. and microfiller effixts below the size range of cement and £ly ash particles and therefore within the cement and fly ash packing matrix Goldman and Bentur (1993) . . * FIGURE 2. but lacking t h e spherical precipitated shape and t h e extremely f i n e gradation. . water reduction in concert with hlgkrange water reducers. . . SILICA FUWL .
have performed some research to separate these different effects of silica fume, hdmg that an inert filler (inactive carbon black) was able to reproduce the microfiller effect especially characteristic of silica fume only when present in particles smaller than 0.073 p - smaller than the effective gradation of either fly ash or the powdered glass. Likewise for the water reducing effect - it is a general consensus (see Kheder and Abou-Zeid (1994) for a detailed discussion) that silica fume exhibits its water reducing abhty afker it has been deflocculated by high-range water reducer because it is at that point that the true spherical shape of its small particles is able to have an effect because it is only then that the particles are acting individually in the rheology of the paste. This understanding would suggest that powdered glass, with a ground rather than precipitated structure, would not exhibit this same behavior. Silica fUme is also commonly observed to be more cohesive than non-silica fume concrete, and produces less bleeding (Scrivener 1989). This behavior might be duplicated by powdered glass because it adsorbs water in much the s a m way, ie. by removing water fiom the larger scale interfaces where it can contribute to bleeding and prevent cohesion; without the extremly fine particles found in silica fume, this effect might be less dramatic, however.
The effects of powdered glass on ASR are expected to derive fiom its pozzolanic and
compositional characteristics: its content of active SiG and resulting pozzolanic activity, its effective alkali content, and its specific surface and dissolution behavior.
CHAPTER 3 - METHODS AND MATERIALS
The experimental program was conducted in several phases by various researchers: (a) a study of
the interaction of both coarse and fine waste glass aggregate and fly ash (the Glass-Fly Ash Series), (b) a field trial in which the most promising mixes from the Glass-Fly Ash Series were used in a sidewalk (the Field Trial), (c) a controlled laboratory test of the possible use of finely ground glass as a cemnt supplemnt (the Powdered Glass Series), (d) and paralleling several of the mixes in each of the previous series and fUrther examining the potential ASR interaction of glass and fly ash, (e) a series of accelerated ASR expansion mortar bar tests (the Accelerated ASR Series). The Glass-Fly Ash Series began with a broad study to identlfy the effects of various proportions of glass and fly ash on compressive strength and ASR (Phase-I). This first phase was conducted by Guadette and Vimawala at the University of Wisconsin (Gaudette 1993; Vimawala 1992). As the optimum proportions were refined in the subsequent phases, fi-eeze-thaw resistance, tensile
strength, air entrainment, and water reducing admixtures were added to the experimental program (Phase-II). The second phase was planned and begun by Cramer, Vimawala and Gaudette, with the author joining the experimental effort during the implemntation of Phase-11. The experimntal work subsequent to Phase-II was conducted by the author, some in cooperation with others including Cramer, Bakke, Carpenter and Jackson.
Prehmary to Phase-I, work was performed to obtain waste glass aggregate and to wash and
grade the aggregate, to obtain the moderate-alkali cemnt used in Phase-I, and to research potential use of Class C and Class F fly ashes to mitigate the expected ASR deterioration due to the glass aggegate.
In Phase-I, the test matrix combined glass aggregate at 0%, 12%, 24%, 36%, 48% and 90%
replacemnt of natural coarse and line aggregate by weight, and fly ash at 0%, 20%, 25%, 30% and 35% replacement of cemnt by weight, for a total of 30 mixes. Each mix was represented by four replicate batches. Additional expekntal series were conducted during Phase-I to
investigate the effects of Class C vs. Class F fly ash and the effects of washed vs. unwashed glass aggregate. No chemical adrnktures were used during these experimental series. It was intended that this study would identlfy promising mixes for more intensive investigation and is d e m i in the proposal by de la Cruz and Cramer (1991).
As Phase-I was nearing completion, Phase-II laboratory trials were conducted with those
proportions of glass and fly ash which showed the most promise
- specifically testing glass
aggregate replacementifly ash replacement ratios of 0%/0%, O%/25%, 12%/20%, 20%/20%, 24%/25%, 24%/30% and 36%/25%. The expehntal program was expanded at this point to include kze-thaw resistance and longer-term strength and ASR testing and the effects of airentraining and water reducing admixtures. As the optimal mix proportions were fi.uther narrowed at this stage, other sources and processing regimes were included for the glass aggregate, hlghrange water reducer and liner and more limited glass gradations were introduced in some of the
m i x e s (O%/O%, O%l25%, 20%/20% and 24%/25%), and several alternative sources of fly ash
were included (de la Cruz and Cramer 1991). Experimental control was provided by mixes with O%/O%, no water reducer; 0%/0%, high-range water reducer; and 0%/25%, high-range water reducer. The initial mixes for Phase-I1 were selected by Gaudette (1993) according to criteria of a
minimum 28-day strength of 2500 psi (17.2 MPa) and a maximum ASR expansion of 0.008%
after 180 days. After examining the results, fiom Phase-I, Gaudette found it necessary to relax these criteria somewhat, and the mixes finally sekted (noted above) had 28-day strengths between 14.5 MPa and 21.2 MPa, and 180-day expansion values between 0.008% and 0.01 1%.
. and two types of fly ash A J of these sections included air entrainmnt. to investigate the effectiveness of powdered glass and fly ash in mitigating ASR at the pessimum content. Based on the results of all of the previous laboratory studies. supplementing the cement by 0%. A sidewalk was constructed with various trial sections including glassfly ash replacement fractions of 0%/0%.It was from the Phase-I1 laboratory mixes that candidates were selected for the Field Trial. Prelirmnary work investigated and documented the ASR reactivity of glass aggregate. and a l l except the 0%/0% control section included high-range water reducer. 20%/20% and 20%/25%.3. fiom the glass aggregate stock by grinding in a ball grinder.43. as well as several selected concrete mixes fiom the Glass-Fly Ash Series. the Field Trial was begun to test the usability and performance of the concrete under typical site conditions. A summary of all of the accelerated ASR mixes is provided in Appendix 3. fine gradation range. and provided baselines for several evaluation of the accelerated ASR results. The Accelerated ASR Series used mortar prisms stored at elevated temperatures in concentrated NaOH solution to develop ASR deterioration within seven to fourteen days. both laboratory and field tnal. 1%. is provided in Appendix 3.5%. 0%/20%. 20% glass aggregate and no fly ash A summary of all of the concrete mixes. Subsequent series were used to determine the pessimurn content of glass aggregate. This material was treated as a cement supplement. 10%/15%.2. 2. and glass aggregate within a limited. Further work was then conducted in the laboratory to study the effects of powdered glass with a mean particle size of approximately 45 ~ u nprepared . 10% and 20% by weight. 5%. and to parallel the Field Trial and Powdered Glass Series concrete mixes. alI in mixes prepared with a wl(c +fi ratio of 0.
with the exception of the Powdered Glass Series. of Milwaukee according to the following schedule: 9/91 First Shipment of Coarse Glass and First Shipment of Fine Glass 2/92 Second Shipment of Coarse Glass and Second Shipment of Fine Glass .' The aggregates used during the fmt portion of d r i a l s and during the later research. the material was used as received. For the majority of the mixes.AGGRFGATES The natural aggregates stocked in the laboratory were used in the laboratory portion of the research The coarse aggregate was a mixture of washed river gravel and crushed gravel. J. and the material smaller than 300 pm was removed by washing and discarded. however. The washing process for the glass aggregate not only removed s o m dust. and the research differed somewhat fiom those used in the f ~ l t is denoted as aggregate A and aggregate B in the appendices. particularly sugars. For some of the mixes a reduced gradation was desired. glass aggregate was ground in the laboratory to increase the fines content (75 pm to 2 mm) before washing. and removed some light components from the glass. * The waste glass aggregate was obtained from M. Schmidt Corp. particularly paper remaining from the original waste stream After the ' The natural aggregates were obtained locally through a donation by Lycon. obtained fiom a commercial municipal recycler.' For those mixes using unwashed glass. Inc. for which the aggregate was oven dried and used in a dry condition to ensure a constant d ( c +j)over the entire series. while for some others. Glass aggregate was crushed container glass. while the fine aggregate was entirely washed river sand. but also dissolved and removed some organic contaminants. The moisture content of the natural aggregate was tested for later use in calculating the resulting d ( c +j)ratio. 7/92 Third Shipment of Coarse Glass 5/93 Fist Shipment of P8 Fine Glass 8/93 Second Shipment of P8 Fine Glass . the glass was washed and the fixtion smaller than 75 pm was discarded as part of the washing process.
different combinations of glass gradations were necessary for the different aggregate replacement percentages. its moisture content was controlled either by drying to constant weight . Standard tests for gradation (ASTM C136). and to match the gradation of the glass aggregate as closely as possible to the natural aggregate which it replaced. The glass aggregates used in the research are summarized in Table 3. .3. then testing a sample by drying (ASTM C566) to determine the remaining moisture content.1.2. C128) were performed with the results detailed in Table 3. is proiided in the Notation section before Chapter 1. though Gravel B. does have somewhat more fine material than Gravel A. is slightly coarser overall than Sand A. The use of the various combinations of glass aggregates in the concrete mixes is summarized in Appendix 3. or by drying to between 0 and 2% moisture content.had been washed. AGGREGATE SPECIFIC GRAVITIES AND A B S O ~ O N S . The gradations of the aggregates used are presented in Figures 3.glass .1.2 and 3. The notation in Table 3. TABLE 3. and Sand B. It may be observed that the natural gravel and sand used as control aggregates are fairly constant throughout the research. used in the Field Trial and the later laboratory work. also used in the Field Trial and the later laboratory work.2. along with other notation used to describe concrete mixes throughout this thesis. and specific gravity and absorption (ASTM C127. 3.1. (WO moisture content). Aggregate Specific Gravity Absorption (%) Natural Gravel Natural Sand Waste Glass Several distinct shipments of coarse and fine glass were used.2.
extremely flaky particle shape Unwashed form of Glass FG FG Washed. used in Field Trial and Powdered Glass Series.2. Gradation #1 Ground in Laboratory from Glass FC . Gradation #1 Ground in Laboratory from Glass FC . Designation Description Washed.TABLE 3. . All of the coarse glass gradations. standardized gradation of Fine Glass for use in Accelerated ASR Series FH FI Examining the coarse glass gradations in Figure 3. and the finest fiactions in the glass aggregate are much smaller than the finest fiactions in the natural gravel. First Shipment of Coarse Glass Unwashed form of Glass CA Washed. limited. GLASS AGGREGATE SUMMARY DESCRIPTIONS.extremely flaky particle shape Washed. form of Glass FG with P50 fraction discarded Washed. Third Shipment of Coarse Glass Washed. Blend of Glasses CC and CE Washed. CD and CE are very similar. meanwhile. First Shipment of P8 Fine Glass Washed. similar to FG with less RlOO fraction retained during washing Washed. First Shipment of Fine Glass Unwashed form of Glass FA Washed. are h e r than the natural gravel. Second Shipment of Coarse Glass Washed.1. but with significantly more fine material than the other three and wider gradations. Second Shipment of Fine Glass Washed. glasses CC. with overall wider gradations. Second Shipment of P8 Fine Glass. while glasses CA and CB are similar to each other.
..AND COARSE GLASSES CA CDANDCE.1 1 10 100 Particle Size (mm) FIGURE 3. .FC. . .. . ....... .. ...1 1 10 Particle Size (mm) FIGURE 3. . 0% 0.01 0.CC... . . .. AND FINEGLASSES F k FB.. .+ .Accel.. .. . ..FD AND FE.. 0% 0. . . ..- Glass CA . CB. * .. .2. . .... .01 0. . . . GRAVELS A AND B.1. .ACGLERA'IED M R GRADATION. .. . ASR Sand . ... . .. ... . GRADATIONS OF NATURAL.. .. . . .. .. GRADATIONS OF N U A I R 'A L SANDS A AND B. .. .. .
. ... ..... . .. .. .. . L 2.. .... Glasses FA.. . ... .... :..... .' ' ' .9 . .. ..'.-:i 0% 1 .. ... .............. ... . .. . . . ....... .... ... -Sand A ~SandB Glass FF .. .. . . .. . ..: .. . .. . .... . ... ..... .... I . . . .01 0... .... .. .... .+...'. . a . . . ... ... ....:.3) show the widest gradations among the fine glasses. ... . .. . .... .. ... :.... .. . ... . . . ..: . .... .Glass FI ... . .. . .... .. ... . The natural sands are finer and exhibit a wider gradation than any of the fineglass gradations.Glass FJ . .. . .-. ....Glass FG ... .. .... ... Glasses FF and FG (Figure 3.... . . . .. . . . . ... :. . .. :.:. :.. . . ..... . . . -.. .. ......1 1 10 Particle Size (mm) FIGURE 3.. <. .. .:...:.. . .. . ..... .... . . Glass FD. L .. . while glass FE. .. .. ... . . .. . . .. .. . : .... AND FINEGLASSES FF.. . ....... .: .. ... ... . ... ... ... . ... ... ... . .2 and 3. .. . ... 1. . . . ......:. . ....:. . ...-:"? 1.. .. .. . ... .. ...... .. Gradations FH and R are narrower and somewhat coarser than glasses FF and FG. FI AND FJ... . . . . Fl3 and FC are very similar to each other. ... . . ..... . .. . . . .. .. -. .:.. . .:. . .. . .. . ...ground in the laboratory from g h s FC. . ..... . .... .. ' ...: ... . .... ...... ... .... .. . . ...... .... ... . . . .. ... ...:.... . .. .. ._.. has a somewhat wider gradation... ..... ..... . :.:. ... :. . .. . ..... ..... :.............. .... ...... ..... .. ..3.... . .. .. ... .... ... .The fine glass gradations in Figures 3... ... . ... FH. . .. FG. ... . .. ... ..... ..:.. :.. . .. .. . ... .. ..... . . ... ... .. . .. .. . .:... ..3 show even greater variation... . . . . ... ..:. ...:_.:_'_ . ....:...:.. ..... . . . --*--Glass FI-I . . . . -. ......:..... . nearly equaling the natural sand with finer gradations overall.. .. .. ..... ... ..... ....... .... .. .. . .. ....... . . .... ... . ... . .. .. .. also ground in the laboratory from glass FC.. . ..... ...... . ... ... .. . ... . is much narrower. . .. with substantially more fine material than glass FE... ..:. . . ...I:".. . . .. . .. L 2 ... .... .. ... .*.... .......-. .. :": " .. .. . ... .. .. . . . ... . 0. . .... ... . ..... . ....... .. ..... .. .... .. .. t! 2': : : : . ... ... ... :... . . .... ..... . .. .. .. ... . . . ...... ... with fairly wide gradations... .. . ... though their greatest fraction is slightly larger than that of the sand.... . . . .. '.. :. . ...... . . with a high content (45%) of a single size fraction.. .. . GRADA~ON OF NATURAL SANDSA AND B...... . ....... ... .. ( C . . . . . .... ... . .
The powdered glass was of approximately 45 ~ u nits i x i n g procedures in a manner similar to stored and handled in a dry state and was handled in the m the cement. 4 The fly ashes were obtained according to the following schedule: 12/90 Fly Ash C WP&L Columbia Station 3/91 Fly Ash F1 WP&L Rock River-Blackhawk Station 8/93 Fly Ash F2 WP&L Rock River-Blackhawk Station note that the Rock River-Blackhawk Station changed its emission control equipment between 319 1 and 8/93 7/94 Fly Ash F3 WEPCO Edgewater Station .one low-alkali (0. ) ~ three sources of Class F ash4. Fly Ash F2 is the closest to allowable limits -it is only over by 0. The fly ash used in the majority of this research has fallen roughly under the Class F classification.49 Na20e).5% on the SO3content. and were characterized according to ASTM C618 (1993). though it is marketed as a Class F ash. Two type I portland cements were used during the research .67 ~ a 2 0 . characteristics are given in Appendix 3. The moderate-alkali cement was donated by LaFarge Corp. Fly Ash F1 falls within the Class C limits on pozzolanic content ( Si02 + A1203+ F e 0 3 ). including its gradation.. FLYASHES AND POWDERED GLASS The powdered glass was obtained by grinding Glass FG in a ball grinder to an average particle size . and the extremely high LO1 interferes The low-alkali cement was donated by Holnam Cement Corp. The pozzolanic content actually falls within the Class C range. and Fly .CEMENTS. Fly Ash C appears to be the only one which completely satisfies the ASTM requirements for its classification. and it also exceeds allowable limits on SO3content and Na20. The principal requirements of the ASTM fly ash classifications (C618) and the relevant characteristics of the experimental fly ashes are compared in Table 3. and one moderate-alkali (0.3. Fly Ash F3 has substantnlly different characteristics fiom the other two Class F ashes.1. Several of the fly ashes used deviate from ASTM standards in some way. ashes were obtained fiom one source of Class C ash.
8% = 5% 9. Grace & Co.2% 5 1.1% = 0. Grace & Co. WRDA-19 at a dosage of 3.74 urn3.5% Complete details of the compositions and characteristics of the cements and fly ashes are tabulated in Appendix 3.7% none 15% 2. 1 1.3. in compliance with ASTM C494 Type A) . TABLE 3.8% 15.5% 0. ASTM C6 18 CLASSIFICATION Pozzolanic so3 Content 15% Fly Ash F1 Fly Ash F2 Fly ~ s F3 h Powdered Glass ASTM Class C Fly Ash C 68.2% 3.4% 61. R. Daracem-50 used at a dosage of 1. P S .5% < 6% 0. Air-entr-nt was provided by a neutralized vinsol resin solution in compliance with ASTM C260.4% 73% .2% .with effective use of water reducing and airentraining admixtures and increases the fraction of light particles present. with the dosage adjusted as necessary to achieve 5% to 7% entrained air.7% = 1. in compliance with ASTM C494 Type F)and a mid range water reducer (a proprietary solution of dispersing and finishing agents and hydration catalysts. the mid-range the air-entraining water reducer was W.70% 64.0% 76.both proportioned to a standard dosage within the manufacturer's recommendation^. R.2% none Na20. The high-range water reducer was W.5% = 1.16% 50% . Water reducers included a high-range water reducer (a modified naphthalene sulfonate solution. = Loss on Ignition (LOU 5 6% 0. admixture was W.4% 5.1. Daravair -The dosage of Daravair was adjusted is discussed in the text.98 urn3.^ . R.5% = 0. 5 * . Grace & Co.
139) and Phase-II (batches 140. thus to ensure workability. the DOT specification for concrete incorporating fly ash Standard Type A-FA. . to more closely approach the water requirement of the DOT specification. a target of 50 mrn was used. In Phase-I. the Wisconsin Department af Transportation Standard Specification for Type A concrete highway pavement (State of WI Specifications 1989) was used as the basis for the r n i x design. The mix design specifications are summarized in Table 3. it was decided to spec@ a target slump for the research mixes. in a further effort to approach the water requirement of the DOT specification. the target slump was 75 mm.4 for the Wisconsin DOT Standard Specification.178) of the Glass-Fly Ash Series. with the expectation that the resulting water requirement would be greater than that in the DOT specification. In some of the mixes. was not used because the required total of cement plus fly ash for Type A-FA is greater than the cement requirement of Type A. a high-range water reducer was added while the target slump was retained at 50 mm. because the amount of m i x water specified did not provide sufficient workability with waste glass aggregate. the Field Trial and the Powdered Glass Series. It was necessary to deviate from the DOT specifications with regard to rnix water. To reduce the number of variables requiring consideration.In keeping with the intended use in concrete pavements. while starting with Phase-II. Phase-I (batches 1.
% of total aggregate Fine Glass Aggregate.25. WI DOT Glass-Fly Ash Series TYFA Phase-I Phase-I1 Total Cement and Hy Ash (kg/m3) Total Aggregate (kg/m3) Fine Aggregate. 30 None 6%+1% 3. 2./m3) Mix Water (kg/m3) 3.74 144 . 136% Replacement Mixes Fine Glass Aggregate.20 336 1873 35-45 None 336 1873 40 0. 25.8% Replacement Mixes Class F Fly Ash. 20. 24.20 Powdered Glass Series 336 1873 40 0.24.20 ' 6%&2% High-Range Water Reducer (L. 1. % of total aggregate Glass Aggregate. 12.4. SUMMARY OF MIX DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS.5.74 For 50 mm slump 0. 24. % of cement Entrained Air Field Trial 336 1873 40 0. 20. 15.36 35% of total glass aggregate NIA N/A 100% of total glass aggregate N/A 100% of total glass aggregate N/A N/A None 0. 36. 12. 5.48.TABLE 3.35 None None None For 75 mrn slump 336 1873 40 0. 25 None None 6%+1% None 138 to 171 None 6%&2% 3. 10.90 35% of total glass aggregate 20% of total glass aggregate 0.20.74 for 50 mm slump 0. 30. % of total cement and fly ash Powdered Glass.20. 10.
Tensile and compressive cylinders.064 m3 in accordance with ASTM C192 and C31.25 m3 drum mixer similar to the laboratory mixer was used with a batch size of 0. after which they were transported to the lab and demolded. As mixing was nearing completion.17 m3 to allow careful control and adjustment of the mix.07 m3 laboratory drum mixer in batches ranging between 0. ASR expansion test prisms were moist cured for 24 hours. while superplasticizer was added separately. The specimens were then handled according to the same procedures as the laboratory specimens. . unit weight and air content were measured (ASTM C143. expansion prisms and freezelthaw prisms were cast and covered with plastic for 24 hours. air-entraining admixture was combined with the mix water. the slump.CONCRETE M ~ G CURING . When used.028 m3 and 0. Mixing and sample preparation procedures for the field trials followed the previous laboratory procedures as closely as possible. C496 and C666). Materials in the field trial were generally handled in a wet condition. then demolded and their original (1 day) length m u r e d . and slump was used for quality control rather than moisture per se. a 0. AND HANDLING AND CONCWTE TESTING The Glass-Fly Ash Series and Powdered Glass Series concrete was mixed in a 0. Strength and k e d t h a w specimens were moist cured according to their respective standards (ASTM C39. and expansion prisms (100 mm x 100 mm x 250 mm) were cast as appropriate for each batch. fieedthaw prisms (75 mm x 100 mm x 400 mm). while moisture contents of the materials used were measured for later use in analysis. moist curing was then continued for 28 days before storage in a saturated lime water bath. C138 and C231). and tensile and compressive strength cylinders (150 mm x 300 mm or 75 mm x 150 mm). Each batch had its slump. unit weight and air content measured according to the same procedures as for the laboratory mixes. Finally. a small amount of water was added to adjust the slump if necessary to achieve a target slump.
the load rate was held constant at 13 MPdmin. 4. and 448 days. 14. Prior to testing. and expansions being measured at various ages up to 21 days. 7. 14. 28. after which testing proceeded in accordance with ASTM C1260 with storage in IN NaOH at 8O0C. They were moist cured for 24 hours before demolding. 112. The original plan for the Glass-Fly Ash Series included ASR expansion measurements at ages of 1.7. Mortar bar specimens (25mm x 25mm x 250mm) were cast according to ASTM C305 for the accelerated ASR testing.28. cardboard bearing strips were used for the split-cylinder tension test with a constant load rate of 13MPdmin.4.224.3'65 and 448 days.112. 18.104.22.168.270. Tensile strength was tested at various ages fiom 7 to 56 days according to ASTM C496. These two schedules were combined in the actual research. The schedule outlined in ASTM C227. calls for measurements at ages of 1. After the initially planned testing was complete. Burlap was used to ensure continuous moist curing. 28. with the peak load recorded. The cylinders were loaded in compression until failure. 270 and 365 days. a standard dial . then stored in 1N NaOH at 80°C for 24 hours before their initial length measurement. the cylinders were capped with a sulfur-based capping compound (ASTM C617) to provide a stable and uniform bearing surface. upon which the concrete prism test was modeled. resulting in measurements being taken at ages of 1. to allow both direct comparison between Phase-I and Phase-I1data and use of the ASTM standard schedule. 224.56. 4. Compressive strengths were measured at various ages fiom 7 to 365 days according to ASTM C39. which continued for seven days following placing. To accurately measure the length of the specimens. 56.The Field Trial test sections were formed and placed by contractor personnel with wheelbarrows and hand tools. 7. further measurements were recorded at ages of 730 and 1095 days. 180.
0001 in. may be calculated without considering the weight of the specbn. as well as the fundamental transverse. to ensure accurate operation. Freeze-thaw and ASR concrete expansion specimens corresponding to the field trial sections were cured and tested according to the same procedures as earlier laboratory specimens. Testing of freeze-thaw durability was done by monitoring the change in the dynamic modulus of elasticity of the concrete with age according to ASTM C666 Procedure A for at least 350 cycles of exposure for all of the experimental mixes and up to 600 cycles for some of the mixes. longitudinal. The durability factor. and by visual observation of the test sections' general condition and resistance to surface wear. however. was measured at various intervals. A freeze-thaw rrrachine was used which kept the samples immersed in water and cycled them between -18°C and 4°C at a rate of approximately 8 cycles per day. at a temperature of 40°F. The calibration of the gauge was checked before and after each measurement. and interpolation used where intermediate weights are required. and weight of the prisms were measured. an important indicator of resistance to kze/thaw &gdabon (ASTM C666). the initial dynamic modulus for the freeze-thaw testing program was measured.28.gauge length comparator was used (ASTM C490). The transverse fi-equency. and torsional fi-equencies according to ASTM C215. with a precision of 0. 28. 120 and 365 days by non-destructive testing using the rebound hammer (ASTM C805). the weight loss itself is a useful indicator of durability. Weights were measured at several times during the testing schedule. . depth. by taking cores for compressive strength (ASTM C42). width. The accompanying specimens cured in the laboratory were tested in compression and tension according to ASTM C39 and C496 at ages of 7. After curing for 28 days. The Field Trial test sections were tested at ages of 7. for calculation of the dynamic modulus. The length.120 and 365 days.
4.In the results and analysis which follow in Chapters 4 and 5. it is insightful to examine their water demand for a constant workability.1 is clearly not linear. The water demand is shown on these plots as the w/(c +fl necessary to achieve a slump of 50 rnm.96) of the control mixes with no glass or fly ash. This is probably because during Phase-I the coarse aggregate fraction was changed from glass CA for replacement levels of . the variations in the actual slumps of the experimental m i x e s were accounted for by adjusting the wl(c +fl by 0. Figures 4.01 per 5. respectively. powdered waste glass and fly ash. Any fine material used in concrete will exhibit a demand for water to wet the surface area of the material and develop the electrostatic double layer necessary for it to move easily within the k s h mix. determined by a linear regression (R~ = 0. powdered waste glass and fly ash are posited as an aggregate replacement. showing a characteristic shape for each series with a constant fly ash content with a sharp discontinuity between 36% and 48% glass aggregate.1. Lines displayed in the plots unite the points of each experimental series for clarity and do not represent a statistical fit of the data unless specifically discussed as such As crushed waste glass.17 mm of slump. a cement supplement. T h e increased water demand due to glass rather than natural aggregate shown in Figure 4. the values shown on the plots are average values of the several specimens at each cornbiition of m i x parameters and provide information to establish trends.2 and 4. A statistical approach was not used because of the small sample sizes representing each combination of mix parameters (generally three to six specimens for each distinct combition). and a cement replacement respectively.3 illustrate this relationship for crushed waste glass.
4). with some interaction with the glass being seen in a greater slope for higher levels of glass replacemnt (i. and the fraction of coarse glass aggregate used was increased &om 65% to 80% of the total glass aggregate (see Table 3.e. 0% 15% 30% 45 % 60% 75% 90% Glass Content (% of Total Aggregate) at all The increased water demand due to replacement of cement by fly ash is approxirnately~linear levels of glass replacemnt.1 alongside their gradations in Figure 3. The water demand of powdered glass (Figure 4. in combination with 48% or 90% glass aggregate.0% to 36% to glasses CC.3) is low. it is clear that the Merence in gradation affects both the intercept and to a lesser degree the slope of the water demand curve. . the fly ash itself exhibits a higher demand for water than when it is used in combination with 0% to 36% glass aggregate)..1. Examining these glasses' effects on water demand in Figure 4. CD and CE for replacement levels of 48% and 90%. a slight rise is observed with the addition of small amounts of powdered glass followed by a downward trend up to additional levels of 20%.
.3. . FA F1. WATER DEMAND BY POWDERED GLASS CONTENT.The increased water demand by glass aggregate and fly ash shows its effect in the strength developed by the various mixes.36% G l a s s 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Fly Ash Content (% of Total Cementitious) 0.42 0% 5% 10% 15% Powdered Glass Content (% of Cement) FIGURE 4. as will be seen in the next section.
with the sharp edges and protrusions creating a hazard requiring heavy gloves. All of these characteristics were improved by using a gradation containing only fine glass. Malung comparisons between materials of similar fineness. making handling dficult and necessitating the use of heavy l l of the particles showed gloves. . retaining the flat shape and smooth molded surface of the original glass bottles. with no sharp edges and no noticeable friability.g. placing and consolidating. similar observations were made of the poor shape of the coarse glass pieces.OBSERVATIONS DURING MIXING AND HANDLING During mixing and handling. coarse glass. and a noticeable fi-iabilityduring handling and mixing.5 mm had notably different properties. During mixing. These glass sizes were much more easily handled. Photomicrographs of these glass sizes may be seen in Figures 1. Glass FG) was no longer immediately identifiable as glass bottle pieces. sand vs. instead resembling a sub-angular sand. while glass particles smaller than about 1. several observations of the behavior of glass aggregate were made: Waste glass particles larger than about 3 mm were recognizable as pieces of broken bottles..e. Partial ffactures were visible in many of the particles.6 in Chapter 1.. i.5 mm (e. Glass particles between 1. and fly ash vs. and the powdered glass produced slightly better workability than similarly graded fly ash. Sharp fiacture surfaces and edges were prevalent. Glass produced by a commercial crusher and smaller than about 1. the coarse glass produced substantially harsher workability than similarly graded gravel. powdered glass. fine glass.1 through 1. and still further by using powdered glass. gravel vs.5 mm and 3 r n m showed some of the characteristics noted above. The coarse glass pieces were extremely harsh. The cement paste was not able to coat the edges of the coarse glass particles because of the sharp convex vertices. the fine glass produced approximately the same or slightly harsher workability than similar sand.
in accordance with Neville (1981). Fly Ash F3 was more coarsely graded and contained many light particles. An approximate trend line of strength vs. but with work all were able to be consolidated by hand.6 and 4. with the non-air-entrained mixes assumed to have 2% entrapped air for the purposes of this calculation (Kosmatka and Panarese 1988). STRENGTH AND STRENGTH DEVELOPMENT S~GTHOVERVIEW. The fly ashes generally performed as expected.4. 90. the first is the amount of glass aggregate as a fiaction of the total aggregate and the second is the amount of fly ash as a fkaction of the total cementitious material.LOW-ALKALIMIXES An overview of strength results vs. in those cases where percentages are given. providmg similar workability to cement. For this equation. 4. The notation used in the legend in this and other figures may be found in the Notation section before Chapter 1: the first two letters indicating the type of coarse glass aggregate and the last two letters indicating the type of fme glass aggregate. but it was necessary to add some additional water to the surface of the pavement to produce additional paste during finishing. particularly the type of cement. with the exception of Fly Ash F3. causing bleeding and segregation of light particles and making finishing di6cult. 4. 180 and 365 days is iliustrated for the low-alkali cement in Figures 4. Some of the core samples taken fiom the sidewalk did display poor consolidation in the bottom layers. The dryer mixes were judged d~fficultto consolidate. i r content by 5% of the measured strength per 1% a i r content to a The strength was adjusted for a nominal standard adjusted air content of 6. while X . wl(c +f) at ages of 28. wl(c +f) of the form XI^'.7.During the field trial. the parameter Yis related to the composition of the concrete.5.0%. workers commented that the mixes with fine glass only were workable and h h a b l e .^^"^^ for the control concrete has - been superimposed on each plot. respectively.
28 DAYS.4. respectively. A CC/FE + x OO/FI Field Trial O O I R Pwd Glass -Trend Line r o + m A A + a A A 1 I FIGURE 4.. At an age of 90 days.5). and then held constant for each cement at various a&.4) has been adjusted for the different specimen size (3 in x 6 in vs. • - 00100 a OOFD 00m 00100 Field Trial 00/00 Pwd Glass' . the powdered glass series has lost further ground in strength development in comparison to similar O/FG mixes (Figure 4. 6 in x 12 in) as outlined by Nasser and Al-Maneseer (1987). while X was used to fit the data to each age. The Powdered Glass Series at 28 days (Figure 4. The strength characteristics of the various forms of glass aggregate are evident from these plots. They display somewhat disappointing strength compared to sirmlar O/FG mixes. Sl'RENCirT-lOVERVIEW -LOW-ALKALICEMENT. possibly because the ASR activity was greater than anticipated and could not be mitigated by the powdered glass.54 varies with age. . Y was thus fitted to all of the strength data for a moderate-alkd cement and lowalkali cement.
perform as well or better than the control mix trend h e at ages of 180 and 365 days (Figures 4.43 -within the typical range of wl(c +fi for pavemnt concretes. but even with high-range .53 even with high-range The m water reducer. STRENGIH OVERVIEW-LOW-ALKALI CEMENT-90 DAYS. all perform poorly.40 and 0. but at a very high w/(c +fi ratio of 0. these mixes are able to .5 I). Glass FE was ground in the laboratory and has a much flakier particle shape than glasses FG and FH.mnt in the Glass-Fly Ash Series: 00lFD and C E R . with the mix CE/FC containing coarse glass aggregate not only performing poorly at high wl(c +fi ratios. The most promising mixes with low-alkali cemnt are OOIFG and OO/FH. are able to do so at wl(c +fi between 0. which typically attains strengths of 20 to 35 MPa at 28 days and 40 to 50 MPa at 365 days.00100 CCIFE 00IFI Field Trial O O m Pwd Glass A + x -Trend Line Q 00100 Field Trial 00100 Pwd Glass + + A 1 A I I A I I I I 1 FIGURE 4.(22 MPa at 365 days at wl(c +fi = 0.5. The other mixes with low-alkali ce.7). they should perform very well as pavemnt. thus demonstrating the detrimental effect that extremely poor particle shapes may have.6 and 4. With strengths of about 30 to 35 MPa at 28 days and 45 to 50 MPa at 365 days. i x OO/FE performs fairly well. and equally Important.
water reducer and a large decrease in w/(c + f) to 0.39, its strength changes little ifat all, thus
making its performance relative to control concrete with a similar w/(c+f) ratio even worse.
OO/OO OOFD OO/FE OO/FF OO/FG o OO/FH CC/FE o 00100 Field Trial OO/FI Field Trial -Trend Line
FIGURE 4.6. STRENGTH O V E R V I E W-LOW-~KALI CEMENT60 55 50
OO/OO OO/FD OO/FE OO/FF OOFG o OO/FH CC/FE 0 W/OO Field Trial OO/FI Field Trial -Trend Line
FIGURE4.7. STRENGTH O V E R V I E W -LOW-AKALI CEMENT-
The field trial specimens with h e glass aggregate FI, which is very similar to aggregate FG, are
somewhat-surprisingin their results. The control mixes without glass and with fly ash, 0%/0% and 0%120%, perform fairly well - achieving strengths of 41 MPa and 56 MPa at wl(c + fl of 0.49 and 0.36 respectively after 365 days. The Merence between these two strengths is rather small, however, considering the large Merence between the two wl(c + A ratios. The rest of the field mixes (composition 00m)show a similar trend, with all of them performing moderately well, but with remarkably little difference between those of low and high w/(c +Aratio.
28 Day Cores ..................................... 365 Day Cores X A 7 Day Cylinders .......................... ................................... 28 Day Cylinders f 0 365 Day Cylinders A
7 Day Cores
wl(c +f) FIGURE 4.8. CORE STRENGIHS AND PARAUEL LABORATORY CYLINDER STRENGTHS.
The strengths of the test cores taken from the sidewalk trial sections are shown in Figure 4.8 along with the strength cylinders providing parallel strength data in the laboratory; both the glasdfly ash composition and the fly ash type are shown along the top of the figure for each mix. The core strength and cylinder strength data are fairly consistent along overall trends. The higher strength of cores compared to cylinders is typical of a comparison between core and cylinder data (Bungey 1979) and is due to differences between the specimen sizes. T h i s pattern is not clear in
the early age data is likely due to less than optimal curing conditions at the site.
AU of the trial
sections are performing well at an age of one year. The effects of the different fly ashes enters into a comparison of the various mixes -the mixes with fly ash F3 have a much higher water demand, but are nonetheless nearly as strong as the mixes with fly ash F2.
STRENGTH OVERVIEW -MODERATE-ALKALI MIXES An overview of strength vs. wl(c + J) for the mixes with coarse glass aggregate and moderatealkali cement at ages of28 and 180 days is illustrated in Figures 4.9 and 4.10. The strength was adjusted for air and a trend line of the form for the control concrete was fitted; both in
the same manner as described above for the low-alkali mixes. It may be seen that the coarse glass aggregate concrete series follow the general trend of the control concrete, but fall consistently below the trend line. Furthermore, the shortfall is greater with increasing age, with no concrete achieving greater than about 27 MPa at 180 days, far short of the expected strength of pavement concrete of 40 to 50 MPa. Comparison of these results for mixes with coarse glass aggregate and moderate-alkali cement with those for coarse glass aggregate and low-alkali cement in the previous .section suggests that the relatively poorer performance is primarily due the coarse glass aggregate rather than the differences in the cements.
52 0.58 0.55 0. 00100 C+oo 0 CCFA CDIFA 5 M X k Q = 20 15 " m A : A - A A 0. 00100 CCFA -Trend Line A . STRENGTH OVERVIEW -MODERATE-FUCALI .49 0. STRENGTH OVERVIEW -MODERATE-ALKALI CEMENT- 180 DAYS.61 w l ( c +f) 0.9.64 0.40 .52 0.70 w +f 28 DAYS. I A A U P 1 1 1 1 .67 0. A A A .67 0.58 0.70 FIGURE 4.64 CEMENT- 0. .6 1 0.49 0. 1 l l l l ' l l r n l / 0.55 0. FIGURE 4.10.
the kacture was along a very sharp failure plane in the fine glass mixes. Tensile strength experimentation was conducted in the hopes that it would shed light on the bond between cement paste and glass aggregate or on the disruption of the concrete matrix by ASR. At 365 days.3.C)THER OBSERVATIONS During the strength testing it was observed that the moderate-alkali mixes with coarse glass aggregate produced a very flexible fracture with a large strain accompanying the failure. on the other hand. while fly ash F2 develops a significant portion of its strength only after 180 days of curing. maintains a virtually constant slope (on a logarithmic-scaled plot) fiom 28 through 365 days.13. however. The differing effect of the several different types of fly ashes is obvious on these plots. DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH -LOW-ALKALT MIXES The development of strength by the various mixes is shown for low-alkali cement in Figures 4. for the Field TriaI in Figures 4.15. It is apparent that fly ash F1 develops its strength more quickly. Fractured coarse glass aggregate particles were observed in compression tests at ages of 90.12. . The tensile strength data are included in the data compilation in the Appendix 4. and for the Powdered Glass Series in . while a m i x containing 20% fly ash F2 is shown in Figure 4.13 and 4. control mixes. Mixes containing no glass and 25% fly ash F1 or F2 have their respective strength development curves shown in Figure 4. The relationship between tensile and compressive strengths was not substantially different for experimental glass mixes vs.11 and 4.12. thus no further use was made of these results in the analysis and discussion. with numerous instances of coarse natural aggregate particle shearing. The control concrete.14. 180 and 365 days. Figure 4. Low-alkali cement was also used in both the Field Trial and the Powdered Glass Series. The low- alkali mixes with fine glass gradations produced a fracture in most cases comparable to the control concrete at similar ages.
Furthermore. follow a similar pattern.1 1. OO/FG. OO/FG.1 1. DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH -LOW-ALKALI CEMENT -FINEGLASS GRADATIONS. with m almost no increase in slope after 180 days. . though they start with somewhat lower strengths than the control concrete with HRWR. OO/FG. . despite its 20% fly ash content. . HRWR FIGURE 4. as the fly ash induces a characteristic strength gain acceleration between 180 and 365 days. 20%/20%. also containing 20% fly ash. The primary difference between these two mixes is that glass FG is well-graded and contains considerable fine material (~25% finer than 200 pm). 55 50 45 h z 3 c $40 35 00 V) 3 30 25 20 15 10 100 Age (days) iI - - 24%/25%. It may also be noted that while the mixes with glasses FG and FH show similar results in the strength overview discussed i xO / F H showing above.61 The superior performance of the mixes 00FG and 00/FH is again evident in Figure 4. 20%/20%. but are again able to maintain a steeper slope than the 0%/25% fly ash mix. OO/FH. 20%/20%. while glass FH is fairly uniformly graded at approximately 1 mrn and contains much less fine material (4% finer than 200 pm). the mixes with glasses FG and FH. their strength development shows different trends at later ages. they have a consistently steeper slope than either the 09610% controls or the 096125% control with fly ash.
.. .12. . 10 10 ... . .. . . . Because . . . . . . The trend for every mix is that the laboratory cylinders develop a greater fraction of their strength before 28 days. The developmnt of strength of the field trial mixes. . . . . . . suggesting that the hydration as influenced by fly ash may have been slowed down by the cooler fall weather several months after casting...LOW-ALKALI CEMENT- COARSE GLASS GRADATIONS. . . . This is to be expected because of the optimal curing conditions for the laboratory cylinders. both laboratory cylinders and core samples. . . 100 1000 Age (days) F I G U R E 4. . . .. .. .14 for the mixes with fly ash F3..... . . .The other mixes shown in Figure 4. .. FA. FA 24%/30%.. . .. . 24%/25%. . . is shown in Figure 4. developing strength slightly more quickly than the fly ash control concrete up to 90 days. . .13 for the mixes with fly ash F2 and in Figure 4. . . .. . . . . The mixes with a both coarse and fine aggregate and fly ash F1. .. . shown in Figure 4. . .. . .. . . .. . then slowing down and developing approximately in step with the fly ash from 90 to 365 days. . ..12. while the core samples develop a greater fraction of the strength after 28 days. .. .. .. DEVELOPMENT OF S M G I H .1 1 all show a pattern of starting at a fairly low strength. in line with both the 0%/0% control concrete and the 0%/25% control with fly ash F1 and sornewhat slower than any of the fine-glass-only mixes. This effect is greatest for the 0%/20% fly ash F2 mix. . show consistent strength development. .
The control mixes with no glass aggregate exceed the strength of all of the other mixes by a wide margin. later. The erratic data observed here and the possibility of an effect of ASR on strength in the Powdered Glass Series will be discussed in Chapter 5.5%. all but the control and the 10% glass m i x show a peak at some point in the curve. The strength development of the mixes in the Powdered Glass Series is shown in Figure 4.15. while the 2. None of the mixes in this series develop strength well.this effect is not as evident for any of the mixes containing glass aggregate. with a dip in the strength development curve at some point in most cases. though the strength was only monitored to an age of 90 days in this series.thls interaction will be discussed further in Chapter 5. . Most all of the mixes containing powdered glass display erratic strength development. there may be some cross-effect between glass aggregate and the development of strength by fly ash . a trough fiom which then subsequently rise again. 5% and 20% mixes show both a peak and.
. DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH-F'IELDTRIAL.FIGURE 4.14.FLY ASH F3 MIXES.
Looking over the range of glass mixes in Figures 4. 4.16. The 0%/0% control mixes and mixes with fly ash but no glass in Figure 4.16 show considerable variability. 48% and 90% in. 4. All of the mixes in these series with glass aggregate contain both coarse and fine glass aggregate. respectively.17.DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH-MODERATE-ALKALI MIXES The development of strength is illustrated for moderate alkali cement with glass contents of 0%.19. it may be noted that the mixes containing glass all develop strength more slowly than the control mixes. and therefore much more slowly than the fly ash-only mixes shown in Figure 4.18 and 4. .16.Figures 4.17. 4. but the fly ash mixes generally start with slightly lower strength than the control mixes and develop strength faster over their entire curing time.18 and 4.19. 24%.
FIGURE 4. DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH-MODERATE-ALKALI CEMENT -48% GUSS.18. .
. . .... . . . . . . . . 5 10 100 . .. . . The CE/FC mixes fiom Phase-IIin Figure 4. . . CCEA -o.70 for a 0%/0% mix decreasing to 1. . . .. . .. . . with a ratio of 1. . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . for example. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . Our results are similar but less severe. .. He found. . . .. with strength development nearly equal to that of the control . .37 for a 90%/0% mix. .. . there is a gradual move fiom normal strength growth to no growth or even regression of strength as the percentage of glass increases. . . . . . . . ~ h Phase-I. . . . .OF STRENGTH-MODERATE-AWALJ CEhENT -90% GLASS. . . . . . . . -0%10% O%/O% -O%/O% .. k mixes with only fine aggregate. .. . . .. . . .. . . . . CCEA +90%/35%.87 with no glass to about 1.19 is sunilar to that found by Johnston (1974). ... . . . . .. .The pattern of strength deveiopmnt with coarse glass aggregate (mixes C W A ) in Figure 4.. .. . . . . . . CDEA 1 : .. who noted that as gravel is replaced by coarse glass. . . .. especially gradation 00/FG. .. .. . ... c 90%/0%.. . . -+ 90%/30%. . .. . CCEA +90%125%.. . . . .a difference which may be due either to the low-alkali cement or to the use of air entrainment in these mixes.. . .. . . . . . . . . : : . . .. . . . . . . . 40 . . . . . . . .90%RO%. show the most impressive pattern of strength development with a strength rise between 180 and 365 days even greater than that of the control mix with fly ash. . .. . . ... . . . . that the ratio of 365 day strength to 7 day strength decreased Iiom about 1. . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . DEVELOPMENT.....19. . CCEA . which does itself show a very substantial increase during that period. . . I 1000 Age (days) FIGURE 4. . . . . ... . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . .... . . . . . . . . . .08 with 100% glass coarse aggregate. .. .. .. .. .. . . . .. .. . .. .. . 1 j - ...12 display a marked difference in behavior compared to the Phase-I CAIFA and C W A mixes.
and the interaction between glass and fly ash evident fiom a comparison of the different curves displayed in Figure 4.RELATION TO GLASS CONTENT AND FORM The relationship of strength to glass content and form may be seen in Figure 4. which has been normahzed for a given m i x as the ratio of the measured strength.20. The CE/FC mixes have strengths 4 0 % higher than the CAFA mixes. but being Phase-I1 mixes. such as the mitigation of microstructural damage by ASR. then rise slightly with additions of 48% and 90% glass. thls would still appear in the strength relationship because the air content adjustment is based on separate control mixes). The markedly non-linear behavior. this may be due either to the difference in cement type or to the use of air-entrainment in Phase-I1 of the Glass-Fly Ash Series (The strengths are adjusted for air content to account for the effect of simply introducing voids into the matrix.10). If the air voids have an additional secondary effect. suggests that there may be more than one distinct effect of glass aggregate that is contributing to loss of strength . and back to 0%<20%<25%<30%<35% at 90% replacement of glass aggregate. adjusted to 6% air content. Notice first that the strengths of the CAFA mixes show a large drop with as little as a 12% addition of glass. The OOEb mixes. display substantially better behavior in Figure 4. with the order of increasing strength being 0% fly ash<(20%=25%=30%)<35%at 0% glass. on the other hand. There is a clear non-linear effect of glass on strength displayed in Figure 4. reversing to 35%<(30%=25%)<20%<0% at 36% glass. with a consistent dip at the 24% and 36% aggregate levels with the coarse aggregate.20.this will be discussed at more length in Chapter 5.13 at glass contents of 20% to 24%. to the trendline at the same w/(c+f)ratio (fiom Figures 4. . This separates the effects that are intrinsic to glass and fly ash fiom the effects of glass and fly ash on water demand.87 and 1.20.7 and 4. reach a minimum at 24% to 36% glass. with normalized strengths between 0.20. An interaction with fly ash which changes for varying amounts of glass aggregate is also seen.
and 365-day results are included in this figure).90 and 0. These strength results have been normalized to the trendlines in Figures 4. confirrmng the observations inade in the general overview of strength results. It may be noted that the field trial mixes (all 00m) show a fairly strong effect of fly ash F2 vs.62.7 and 4.61 and 1. . i. the normalized strength is the ratio of a given mix's strength to the strength of the trendline at the same wl(c +J) (long-term 180. though there is a wide variation within each fly ash: fly ash F2 produces normalized strengths of 1.12 while fly ash F3 produces normalized strengths of 0.e.10.0% 15% 45% 60% 75% Glass Content (% of Total Aggregate) 30% 90% The effects of fly ash content and form are illustrated in Figure 4. fly ash F3.21.
FA F I 36%1y%. Field 20%1y%.- . RELATION TO POWDERED GLASS CONTENT The relation of strength to powdered glass content is presented in Figure 4. CEIFC. CAIFA. Field 20%1y%.CCIFA. FA F2. FA F1 36%ly7o. CAIFA. . OOIFE & OOFG. FA F3. FA F3 13. FA FI Fly Ash Content (% of Cementitious) . OOIFG & OOIFH.note that the entire Powdered Glass Series was conducted at a constant wlc ratio of 0. Field O%/y%.%/y%. therefore no adjustment for WIC variation is needed. RELATION OF STRENGTH TO FLY &H CONTENT AND FORM. FA F1 24%Iy%. AU of the strengths relative to the control mixes are below the strengths of comparable glasdfly ash mixes that performed well in the GlassFly Ash Series. OOFI. OOFI. or it may indicate an ASR reaction is taking place that is disrupting the concrete matrix and reducing the strength.40 0% 10% 20% 30% A 20%1y%. o FIGURE 4. CC/FA. FA F I 90%1y70. FA F2 4 4 A A x x + o 0. FA F I 24%1y%. it is more probable that the observed effect is due to an ASR reaction. O O F I . this may indicate either that the addition of powdered glass impairs strength overall. and because the reduction in strength does not increase with higher additions of powdered glass. FA F2 24%1y%.22. 00100.43. Because the reduction in strength appears already with glass aggregate and no powdered glass addition. -CEFC. CAIFA. but rather seems to reach an extreme value at 5% addition at all ages. CA/FA.2 1. Field l'rial IO%/y%. The strengths are normalized for air content according to the procedure described earlier .CEFC. FA F I 0%/0%.O%/y%. FA F3. 00100. FA F I 48%/y%. FA F I 12%1y%.
w/o Powd.23 for the glass mixes with both coarse and fine glass. w/ & w/o Powd. w/o Powd.24 for the glass mixes with fine glass only. Glass -.20% Glass Aggr. .55 50 I h -10 a 45 w 4 - 20% Glass Aggr. w/ & w/o Powd.5%.28 Days o No Glass Aggr.* -. w/ & w/o Powd.56 Days . 'then for the specimen to retain that stiffness nearly constantly through the entire test: the 0%/0% mix initially drops to 94. and in Figure 4.90 Days No Glass Aggr.28 Days 2090 Glass Aggr. Glass -. while the 0%/0% control with HRWR initially drops to 94% and loses only 2. Glass -. The pattern established by the control mixes is for the stiffness to drop immediately (within 10 cycles) to approximately 93 to 96% of the original sthess. There is no firm criterion of acceptable performance.90 Days I t 0% 5% 1090 15% Powdered Glass Content (9% of Cement) 20% .56 Days 0 No Glass Aggr. Glass -.. Glass -. and maintains that through the remainder of the test. w/o Powd. but the author's experience suggests that a mix must retain 80% of its original stiffness after 300 cycles of exposure for it to be acceptable for use in pavement.PATERNS OF STIFFNESS DEGRADATION AND WEIGHT LOSS The progressive degradation of stiffness over the course of the fieeze-thaw tests is shown in Figure 4. Glass -.5% between 10 cycles and 600 cycles.
........ . ....... OO/FG..... ... . 00/FH...... ....-O%iO% . ... HRWR 20%/20%. . 20%/20%. HRWR - 24%/25%..... . . ... H S - IL ..... 85 10 100 1000 Cycles FIGURE 4. MRWR .... .......100 Cycles ... . .......24..... ........ .... ...... > - ...... ..... . ... .... ... FkEEZE-THAW STIFFNESS DEGRADATION -FINEGLASS GRADATIONS ..... .... . . .. . . . - 20%/20%.... *0%/0%.. 00/FE. OO/FG........ ..HRWR ............
25 and 4... the only mix showing a sirmlar pattern is the 12%/20% m i x ..26......5% between 10 cycles and 350 cycles............23). then loses an additional 2% between 10 cycles and 350 cycles... All of the prisms show a similar pattern...... reflecting its hgh wl(c +A ratio and low strength. 100 Cycles The weight degradation experienced by the test specimens over the course of the freeze-thaw testing is illustrated in Figures 4.................. .. .... In contrast....C W C 36%/25%.24).. The FE gradation shows a degradation of 6.5% (mix 24%/30%) from 10 cycles to 350 cycles.... . CWC .......... the other coarse glass mixes lose between 9% (mix 20%/25%) and 22..... show degradations between 10 cycles and 600 cycles of 4% for gradation FH.......Among the coarse glass mixes (Figure 4..... after an initial drop which is very similar to or even less than that exhibited by the control mixes............ .. on the other hand (Figure 4. ....... with the differences appearing in the magnitude of loss rather than showing a distinctly different pattern ..... .............CE/FC 20%/30%. compared to degradations of 2% and none for the two FG mixes... -o-- - 12%/20%. The h e glass gradations FG and FH..........which initially drops to 95%...... cE/Fc 20%/25%. respectively.
between successful and unsuccessful specimen's. The control specimens show better results than any of the experimental mixes, with weight losses of =I% at 350 cycles. The coarse glass mixes, shown in Figure 4.25, are tightly grouped at 2.5 to 3.5% loss at 350 cycles. The 12%/20% mix,though the leader among the coarse glass mixes with 2.5% loss at 350 cycles, is still worse than that of the control mixes, in contrast to its fairly good stfiess retention (Figure 4.23). The fine glass mixes, shown in Figure 4.26, show wider variation, and while still following the same trends in weight loss as for stfiess, some of the weight losses are several times that of the control mixes. Gradations FG' s performances with weight losses of 1.5% and 2.5% at 350 cycles correspond well to their 10 to 600 cycle stiffness losses of zero and 2.5%. Gradation FH's performance also corresponds well (4% loss in stiffness between 10 and 600cycles, 2.5% loss in weight at 350 cycles). Gradation FE's relatively poor performance (6.5% loss of stfiess between 10 and 350 cycles - about 3-4 times the best performing fine glass mixes) is further highlighted here, with a loss of 4.5% of its weight at 350 cycles.
20%/20%, OOIFG, MRWR
The s t h e s s degradation of the field trial specimens is illustrated in Figure 4.27.
excellent stfiess through about 70 cycles, but between 70 cycles and 350 cycles, there is an alarming degradation. Using a criterion of 80% stffhess retention at 350 cycles, the two Fly Ash
~ 2experimental ' mixes (20%/25% and 20%/20%) fall below this limit; and while the Fly Ash F2 0%/20%control m i x does not fall below the experimental mixes, it does show a similarly steep
degradation between 200 and 350 cycles. The superior fi-eeze-thaw performance of the Fly Ash F3 mixes along with the superior strength performance of Fly Ash F3 points to a clear difference between the two fly ashes. The pattern indicated by the stfiess degradation in the fi-eeze-thawtests i s that the combination of glass and fly ash in concrete clearly does reduce freezethaw stfiess durability substantially, though the cause of the dramatic loss of s t h e s s between 70 and 350 cycles is unexplained and may be an artifact of this particularly test series.
, . . . ... . . . . . ... . . ... . . . . . , , . .., . ..,....' .......,. ..:. . . . :. .. :. . .:. . .:. . :. , , , . , ..y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . ... , ... . , .......... . . , ... ...
..................... . . . . . .....................
.........,............. ::; .... i . . . l . . . : . . . : . . i . . .......,....... .......,..
. . . .. ;...;..;..... . . . ............. ..I.. ...... .. .....:....:...:...I.. :..... ..> \:. :. + ; :. . ;. ... : .\>. . . ...,.......................... . . .:.. . :............. . <.%::::. ' ......................... .. .\. . ' . ...... ' . ................ . . . . . . . , , , . . .............................................,........ .............. ...... , ........................... .......................... ...... : ..\ . . . . . . ...,.. + .... :...:...:...:. . : . .... . :...-....\.:.. . . . :.................. . , , . , . , . -. , . . ,................. . . . . ....................... '.*" ................,.. ....................>... , .......... ,.... . . . . *. . . , , , . ........................... .:.... .\?; .:. ............................ O%/O% . . , .. ., ..,................... . . .:.. .;.. .:. . ..:.. . . ..\ 1:. . . . ..:. . . . :. .;. . -- 20%/20%, FA F3, HRWR ............ : : : L .............. :. .......\::I.... . : . . . . : . . . :. . .:. . .:. .:. . ..-, . . . . ..,.. . . .-*.10%/15%, FA F3,HRWR .. .; ..:. ..:. .........-...... .:. ....... .,. .-.--....., . ... ,........ ....................................... ..\ . . r . . :. . . . : . . . , . : . . . . . . . . . - - - 20%/25%, FA HRWR .. .!. ..I................. :. ...................................... \ . , , , , .
C . . . . . .
.. . . . , . . ., .. .. . . .. .. .. .. , . ....................... . . ........... . . . ,.......... . . , .. .
. . . . a
- 20%/20%,FA n,HRWR
~0%/'20%, FA F2, HRWR .. .;. . . . .:. ................ .:. ....... .:. .......... . ,. ... , , ............ . .: . : . . . ........... . . .'.. ................................ . . . . .. . . . .
...:. . .:.....................
...... .:.. . e . . i.. ..;. . . i . .
I _ _ _ > . .........I..
FIGURE 4.27. FREEZE-THAW STIFFNESS DEGRADATION -FIELD TRIAL.
See pages 42-43 for definition of fly ash types F1, F2 and F3.
76 Figures '4.28 presents the stiffness degradation of the Powdered Glass Series. Because the Powdered Glass Series included control mixes with both 4.2% and 8.1% entrained air, it is possible to make some observation of the effects of entrained air on keeze-thaw durability: the prisms with 8.1% entrained air drop slightly more during the first 10 cycles (a drop of 7.8% vs. a drop of 5.3% for the control mix with 4.2% entrained air), but degrade less during the remainder of the test (3.4% degradation between 10 and 350 cycles vs. 8.9% for the 4.2% entrained air mix). The 20% powdered glass prisms fail to maintain substantial stfiess, with only 46% of the stiffness remaining after 350 cycles, but it is not clear whether this is due to the presence of powdered glass or because of the 3.4% air content. The other mixes have varying performance, with the 1% and 2.5% powdered glass mixes somewhat better than the control mixes and the rest somewhat worse, as illustrated in Figure 4.29.
100 95 90
RGu~~4.28 FREEZE-THAW . STIFFl\TESSDEGRADATION - POWDERED GLASS SERIES.
.. Only a small amount of paste has been removed from the top ......... Paste sloughed predominantly from the glass aggregate particles...........5%.. 40% -- 4 20% Glass Aggr.. ~n *... with subsequent sloughing of the glass particles themselves as the degradation continued............29.. and the trend of increasing degradation with 10 .. (A 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Powdered Glass Content (% of Cement) FIGURE 4..... 5 20% a - C I . were noticeably weaker than the face of the specimen after freeze-thaw exposure........ c c d e .. STIFFNESS LOSS BETWEEN 10 AND 350 CYCLES BY POWDERED GLASS CONTENT The trend which is seen in Figure 4......I 0 .... The comers of the specimens.. OBSERVATIONS OF SPUG AND Q U ~ A T Z BEHAVIOR VE Visual observation of the degradation during the freeze-thaw testing suggested that the majority of the degradation took place in the mortar fraction of the concrete......29 suggests an optimal powdered glass content of 1 .2.... the Field Trial test sections have shown excellent durability to abrasion and freezing weather... - Based on visual assessment.... ............ which had a higher mortar content because of the edge effect of aggregate paclung........... 0 i - 30% ......20% powdered glass suggests that both low air content and high powdered glass content contribute to the poor performance of the 20% powdered glass mix. either h e or coarse........... I 'b Control wlo Glass Aggr.......
Failure criteria have been defined at the various ages for the low-alkali mixes. respectively. the expansion of a known .31. exposing the top layer of both natural and glass aggregates. 4. They suggest that no absolute criteria may be established to differentiate acceptable fi-om unacceptable expansion during a long-term concrete prism test. The top layer of aggregate appears to remain well bonded in the pavement.33. including the glass aggregate.mixes according to guidelines suggested by Rogers and Hooton (1991). wherein the expansion is a maximum at some intermediate glass content. with the lowest strengths being recorded at a glass content of 24 .30. The expected pessirnum behavior.20. but is still somewhat evident even at an age of 1095 days.surface.this will be discussed in Chapter 5 as an interaction between glass and fly ash. it appears at a glass content of 20% to 24% in thk case. There is also a pessimum-like-effect in the strengths illustrated in Figure 4. Concrete prism expansions versus glass content at ages of 28. Additional wear in the wheel tracks is minimal.32 also show a pessimum effect with the low-alkali mixes. 365. the Field Trial mixes. ALKALI-SILICA REACTTVITY AND DURABILITY OVERVaY OF CONCRETE PRISMEXPANSION AND RELATION TO GLASS CONTENT AND TYPE The effect most distinctive of g h s aggregate and of most concern in this research is the development of the alkali-silica reaction between glass aggregate and cement paste . 4. 730 and 1095 days are summarized in Figures 4. this suggests that there may be some interaction between ASR and strength development with glass aggregate .32 and 4.. 4. it is most clear at early ages (e. is evident in these figures with a pessimum content of 36% to 48% glass for the moderate-alkalimixes. and the moderate-alkali.3 1 and 4.g.36%. at 28 days. however.detected by monitoring the expansion of concrete prisms. the expansion of the 36% glass prisms is more than double that of the next highest prisms).30. rather. Figures 4.
r. 35% FA Mod-Alk Criterion 1 . . 20% FA Field. . .. B .. .+-. . . . .. . .. CONCRETE PRISMEXPANSION BY GLASS CONTENT . - . . .NoFA Low. .. . . . . . . . . . . I .## . . . 25% FA Low. . . . . . . . #. not slmply reduce it to a slightly lower level. . .. .# . . . A margin of 0. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . 30% FA Mod. . . . . 25% FA Field Trial Crirerior. . . .-. .30. . . . . . Rogers and expansion of the control m Hooton notes that thls method of establishing fdure criteria is reasonable because most all aggregates develop some slight ASR. .- J L 7 7 : A o + 8 t 0% 12% 24% 36% 48% 60% 72% 84% 96% Glass Content (% of total aggregate) FIGURE 4. .. . . . . . . . . 0 . .. . . . . . . . . . with a small additional margin to allow for slight variations in aggregates and measurements and to allow for other effects which might cause small changes in concrete prism dimensions over time..*. . . . .r - . . . .. . . .. . -o 0 Low.005%over the i x at each age has been used as the criterion in this analysis. . . C . .. . . . . .. . . . . . 15% FA Field.. . . . .: I --. . . . No FA Field. . .innocuous control aggregate without fly ash should be used. . . . . . . . . . . . 'b. .. . . . .. .30Yo FA ' Low-Alk Criterion Field. . . . Mod. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'O%FA Mod. . 20% FA Low. . . ---.# . .. .. . .28 DAYS. . . . N o F A Mod. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . # . . # . 25% FA Mod. . and if fly ash is effective in mitigating ASR it should substantially e h a t e expansion. . .
... . .... ............ ....... .. C O N C R PRISM E ~ EXPANSION BY GLASS CONTENT ... ... 35% FA Mod-Alh Cri~erion & .. . > Low.... . .. 0. E . .... . . ....... ....... .... .......... . ...... ..... ................ ........................... .... .................. ........... ....... .1000 . ...... ... ..... .... .. .. ............ .. ... .. ........... ... : ... ... .. . .... ......... 35% FA Mod-Alk Criterion ~ 1 ~ 8 b ::::::::::: ..... . e W + ...... .. ........ ...... ...... . . .... ........ . . . . ... .. . .. . ... CONCRETE PRISM EXPANSION BY GLASS CONTENT- 730 DAYS...... ........ ....... ...... .. ...... ..... N o F A T D I D A o Mod.... ......... 30% FA *Low-AlkCriterion Field. . .. .......... ..... .... ...... . ..... . . ... ... .. .... ...3 1.... ....... . . ....... .. .. ... -" A LOW...... . ... ..... 15% FA Field. .. ..NoFA Low. .... .. .. .. .......... - ..... . ....... ... .... . .. .. ... . .. ......... ....... .- ... ........ ... ... .... . . . ........ ... .. .. . .... . ... ..... . . ' ' ' ' ' " ~ 1 " 12% 24% 36% 48% 60% 72% 84 % 96% Glass Content (% of total aggregate) FrGURE4. .. . ..... .. .. . .. .... t... .... . Low..... ..365 DAYS... ............ .. .. .. ... .... No FA Low. .. . ... .. ...... ..."46 o " ... ..... .............. t 3 0 A - 100 C .... . ...20%FA A Low. .. .... .. ... ..... .......................... . .. .. ........ . ... .. No FA o Mod............. ..... 30% FA ......... .. ... .. ... .... .. ... . . ................ J .. ............ . . ...... . ... . ... . .... ............. .............. ...... . ..... ..... .. .......... ... .... . .. ... ... ..... 1............. ........ .......... . ... ..... . ... ..... ..... .. .+ ......... . ....... ... ............. ....... V .. ...... .... ............ .. .... . ......... ...... ... 20%FA .. c ... ............. .. . ........ . .. . .... .. .. . .... . ............... .. . . .... . ........ ... ..... ............ ............ ... .......... .. 9 2 c 0 ........ .... ... ... .... ..... ......... ..... . ... ..... .... ... No FA Field. ... ... ....... . .... ...... ............... ............... . .. ... .-.......... . ............. .. ... ............... .. . ....... .. . ....... ... ............ . 9......... .... .... ........... ...... . .. ............... :: 1:. I 0% 1.. 25% FA o Mod... . ... .......... 30% FA + Mod....... ........ ....... . ..... . ........................... ......... ...... .. .... ......... ..... A Mod..... . . ............. ...Low-Alk Criterion .. .. .. F-4 . ... ...... ..... h 0 0 5 Low.... .32. .. .. . .... ... ... ....... 20% FA A Mod... ........ ... . . ... . . . ... ....... ...-6$... .... ... ..... .. . .... .. 25% FA Field Trial Criterion o Mod.. .... ....... . .. . . .. .... .............. .. . .... ........... . ....... . . .... ............ b - Bc ~ o " . ... .... . . . ......... ... . ... . ..... .. ' 12% 24% 36% 48% 60% 72% 84% 96% Glass Content (7% of total aggregate) FIGURE 4.. .25% FA . A .... " .. ..20%FA loo . ......-............ .. ... I1 . ........ .......... ..... n .. .... o Mod..... ..... . ...... . .. . ............... . .... ... .... . ....... .. ... ..... . .. .. ... ... .. . ......... .. . .... .... .. . .. .. ..A ..... ....... .. .. .... .... . .. . . . ........ ...... 20% FA A Field. ... . .... .. . ....... . ~ 9 ........... ........30%FA + Mod...... ........ . I ' i " F ..... . .......... ~ 1 0% V - I I s Mod........ ..... . .....25%FA ...... ..... ......... .... . 25% FA Low.... ..
................................................................................................................. Do t 0 ............................................ indicating that the combination of low-alkali cement and air-entrainment do much to reduce ASR... .......... CONCREIE PRISMEXPANSION BY GLASS CONTENT.......................................... ................................................ ................ .................................................DAYS................................. .......... ........... 72% 84% 0% 12% 24% 36% 48% 60% 96% Glass Content (% of total aggregate) FIGURE 4..... .. NO FA Mod................................................... The maximum reaction appears here at a pessirnum content of about 36%.... ...... ................... particularly the 90%/20% mix................... 0 Mod............................................. : ........... .................. ............................. .......... :::::::::::: A Mod.. no fly ash.................................................................................... D " ............. / ............. ............................................................................... but are not able to completely mitigate ASR with coarse aggregate........................ and all of the 90%mixes exceeding their limit except 90%/30%....................... ............... .............. 35% FA .. .................................. ........................................................ ................. ....................................................... ..................................................... ...............A+ .... ................................................................... 0 ............................................ .......... 0 % ~ ~........................................ ... .................... ............... o MO~ 3............... coarse glass mixes have reached an age of 1095 days...................................... ....... At thls age........ ......1095...............20%FA .. ............ As fly ash is introduced............. the overall expansion trends continue... + Mod...........33........ ....... the greatest expansion shifts to the mixes with 90% glass. I A............................................. -Mod-Alk Criterion 0 D ................................... and varying amounts of glass aggregate......... ... the 25%/30%CE/FC mix and the 20%/25%CEIFC m i x have slightly exceeded their limit by an age of 730 days.................................... 0 A 1 ] .81 Among the low-alkali mixes....... Only the moderate-alkali................................ even with some fly ash...... ................. I ............... ....................................... ............................................ .......... however...+ ............... A pessirnurn phenomenon is clearly evident among the series of mixes with moderate-alkali cement.... ........... ....... .... ... the lint.......................................................... .............with the 36%/0%mix showing the highest expansion at every age.............................. : .................................................. 25% FA .. with mixes with fiom 12%/0% to 90%/0% exceeding their limit whlch is very near considerably.........
their is little variation in expansion between the Phase-I. Tables 4. 4. does not appear to have a clear effect on the expansion. cement alkali level.4 summarize the performance of the mixes relative to their respective criteria at ages of 28. '----' IS UNACCEFTABLE). as they are somewhat intermingled within the low-alkali and field trial series. These mixes will be examined more closely in the next section to separate the effects of some of these variables.1.The form and gradation of the glass. 4. respectively.1.365. Looking at expansion after 365 days (Figure 4.3 and 4. fly ash type. Phase-LI and Field T@ prisms containing both glass and fly ash.31). TABLE 4.OK ---. it is difiicult to clearly differentiate the effects of glass gradations.---.2.OK OK 10% 20% 0% Gls Gls Gls OK 12% 20% 24% 36% Gls GIs Gls GIs . and air entrainment. ASR PERFORMANCE AT 28 DAYS ('OK' IS ACCEPTABLE. Moderate-Alkali Mixes Field Trial Low-Alkali Mixes FA 0% 0% Gls OK 12% 24% 36% 48% 90% 0% Gls Gls Gls Gls Gls Gls ---. but it is clear that the mixes with a given fly ash content and glass content are fairly tightly grouped despite all of these variables. meanwhile. Overall.730 and 1095 days.
2. ASR PERFORMANCE AT 730 DAYS ('OK' Moderate-Alkali Mixes IS ACCEPTABLE. Low-Alkali Mixes Moderate-Alkali Mixes Field Trial 1 FA I I 0% 12% 24% 36% 48% 9 0 % ' 0% 10% 20% 0% 12% 20% 24% 36% GIs GIs Gls Gls Gls Gls Gls Gls Gls GIs Gls Gls Gls Gls TABLE 4. '----'IS UNACCEPTABLE). '----' IS UNACCEFTABLE).3. ' Low-Alkali Mixes 0% 12% 20% 24% 36% Gls Gls Gls Gls GIs OK 0% OK ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- . ASR PERFORMANCE AT 365 DAYS ('OK' IS ACCEPTABLE.TABLE 4.
but still 3 .50% glass aggregate -the pessimum content for this case -followed by a gradual decline with lower expansions. As the proportion of glass used is increased. The natural aggregate used in the research is itself slightly reactive. ASR PERFORMANCE AT 1095 DAYS ('OK' Moderate-Alkali Mixes I S ACCEPTABLE.4 times the 0. the expansion increases steadily to a maximum at 40% .34 presents the results of accelerated ASR tests (ASTM C1260) for varying amounts of glass aggregate with no fly ash or powdered glass for mitigation.4.12% has been used as a failure criterion.12% criterion with a mix of 0% glass and 100% natural aggregate. . '----' IS UNACCEPTABLE). OK OK. An expansion at 14 days of 0.12% criterion with a mix of 100% glass and 0% natural aggregate. OK OK OK ---- I A C C E L E F X M ASR SERIES RESULTS Figure 4.TABLE 4. with results just below the 0.
which shows the change in expansion as powdered glass or fly ash is added in various proportions.0% 20% 40 % 60% Glass Content (% of Total Aggr) 80% 100% FIGURE 4. with none of the combinations containing at least 20% admixture expanding beyond the 0.34.35. The three admixture represented in the figure may be ordered (Fly Ash F2 > Powdered Glass > Fly Ash F3) in their effectiveness at reducing expansion. Comparing the curves for 20% glass aggregate and 40% glass aggregate. A C C ~ T EASR D EXPANSION -GLASS rnNO M~IGATION. . The effects of various mitigating admixtures are shown in Figure 4.12% criterion.40% glass aggregate produces approximately twice the expansion at any proportion of powdered glass. it may be seen that the amount of glass aggregate used does have a signiiicant effect on the results of the test . Mineral admixtures in proportions of ~ 2 0 % or greater provide excellent mitigation of ASR expansion.
..... ..... .. ....... wffowd...... w/FA F2 .......... .. ............ .... .. . .............. POWDERED GLASS.... .. . ..... ..... . ... ... --."........ I -.. ........... .... ... 0% 5% 15% 20% Powdered Glass Content (% of Cement) or Fly Ash Content (% of Total Cementitious) 10% 25% FIGURE 4.......... . ..0 ...\...... \ \ \ z250 d 4 40% Glass Aggr.------___ I . Glass . .... .... .......- ... .-.........12%Expansion Criterion ...... - YL c c u ..... ..... .... .--... . ..0.. .. Glass .. ..... . ... \"' t .. ..... ... .. ...... T .... . ......... \ ... .....+ -20% Glass Aggr. . ..............\.\....-....20% Glass Aggr............... ... 100 % 150 c ... ... .. .... ....400 E350 0 0 X ......a ... 8 8 0 '5... ........ .. ............... .....10 . .... .......... ....... ......... .. ........... ....... . .. .... ..........20% Glass Aggr... .. 200 I[ .. ... ......... .. ...... . ...35.. .\ b-- .......... .... .. \ \ .-. ! ... W ? 50 0 .I .. ACCELER4?ED ASR EXPANSION -FLYASHES F2 AND F3. ........ 6 300 w - 1 1 . .. ... ..... -.............. ....... .. " ' ....... .. : . wffowd....... ......... ..... w/FA F3 - I 1 - \ ....... .. . ......... .... ....
consistently reduced the strength by as much as 40%. Excessive use of some gradations of glass demanded such high quantities of water that the concrete was beyond the range of w/cratios for good quality concrete. freeze-thaw durability. The 20%/20% OOIFG mix was among the strongest overall. The most successful combinations were obtained for intermediate proportions of both glass aggregate and fly ash. the 24%/25% m particle shape and gradation of the coarse glass prevented it from doing as well as the optimal fine glass mixes. strength.CHAPTER 5 . and ASR studied here. Among i x seemed to be the optimal proportions. STRENGTH A range of strength behavior was observed among the various mixes containing waste glass. Several factors caused low strength among certain mixes: Sugar or other chemical contaminants. An interaction between fly ash and glass reduced the development of strength by fly ash in certain mixes. including the fresh mix properties. with strengths at 180 to 365 days from less than 10 MPa up to greater than 50 MPa. Use of poorly graded and poorly shaped glass hampered workability to the extent that either the glass was not able to be consolidated or so much water was used to ensure . where present. though the the coarse glass mixes.ANALYSIS OF DATA AND DISCUSSION Glass aggregate produces significant effects across a broad spectrum of concrete properties.
Lower grade fly ash with high free carbon and sulfur trioxide contents.20%. WI'C ratio of the resulting concrete. may be a factor limiting the strength of some concretes. This effect may reduce the strength of concrete mixes made from typical proportions of glass and fly ash by as much as 10% . interfered with the actions of water reducers and air-entraining admixtures to the extent that the overall quality of the mix was reduced. 3) The strength of the glass aggregate itself.. i. The variation in strength due to this can range from a 25% strength loss to a 5% strength gain. 2) Waste glass aggregate reduces the strength developed by fly ash in the cementlfly ash m i x in situations in which ASR is active. bleeding. it cannot be accounted for by either a change in wlc ratio or air content. 4) There is a strength loss intrinsic to the waste glass aggregate. Satisfaction of this water demand increases the thereby producing a lower strength. especially in combination with glass aggregate with which it has several interactions. its friability and relatively low resistance to aggregate fracture. or a change in the behavior of the cementitious components of the mix. Possible reasons for this behavior are discussed in the next section. CAUSES OF STRENGTH REDUCTION AND VARIATION The effects of waste glass aggregate on strength may be divided into four catagories: 1) Waste glass aggregate displays a water demand greater than that of natural aggregate.e. This effect is probably due to a difference in paste-aggregate bond for a glass particle versus a natural aggregate particle. and segregation severely hampered strength development. .88 consolidation that the combined effects of high wlc ratio.
. This total effect is then broken down in the three intermediate columns into the effect of water demand. The intrinsic effect as defined here is primarily . as a fraction of the control strength.7 and 4. The values in Table 5. the effect of the interaction of glass on the strength development of fly ash. The total effect then indicates how much the experimental mix falls short of the control strength.Table 5. strength effects shown in the . though in practice strength cannot be reproduced with that precision .10.3). so that the three components sum to the total effect.the differencewas taken as the effect of the interaction. The effect of water demand is calculated from the trendline displayed in Figures 4. adjusted to a nominal air content of 6% as described at the beginning of Chapter 4. The change in strength from 0% fly ash to the actual fly ash content for the control concrete was compared to the corresponding change in strength of the appropriate glass series for the experimental mix.to 12-month) strengths of the respective mixes. and the effect intrinsic to the glass aggregate. table and discussed in. For purposes of comparison.1 have been developed as follows: The strengths given in the table (MPa) are the long-term (6. The effect of the interaction of glass on the strength development of fly ash was calculated from the strengths which had been adjusted for wl(c +J) (illustrated in Figure 5. The change in strength of the trendline between the wl(c +J) of the control concrete and the wl(c +J) of the experimental concrete was taken as the effect of the water demand.in Chapter 6 the conclusions are discussed with consideration for the precision achievable in practice.Chapter 5 are displayed to the nearest 1%. The magnitude of the intrinsic effect was then determined as the remaining difference between the total effect and the effects of water demand and interaction.1 presents an overview of how the effects of glass aggregate on strength break down for several representative mixes. no other adjustments were made.
2 17.5 42.0 -6% -4% 0% -20% 0% -24% 0% = -5% -26% -28% -29% -22% -35% -37% -27% -32% -32% -6% +13% 12%/25% 0%/25% CNFA FA F1 36%/0% CNFA 36%/25% CNFA 90%/0% CNFA O%/O% NoFA O%lO% FAFl O%/O% NoFA -14% -18% -37% -45% -14% -8% -8% G 90%/25% 0%/25% CNFA FAFl 24%/0% CA/FA O%/O% NoFA 0% -20% -7 % -7% -7% 24%/25% 0%/25% CNFA FA F1 24%/25% 0%/25% CER FA F1 24%/25% 0%/25% OO/FG FA F2 20%/20% 0%/25% OOFG FA F2 0% -5% Several conclusions may be drawn from the analysis presented in Table 5.2 39.1 11.4 53. but may also include the effect of the strength of the glass aggregate particles themselves as well as any other intrinsic effects that have not been hypothesized. Total Effect of Effect of Lntrinsic Expr. with the fine glass (mixes OOIFG) exhibiting slightly lower demand than the coarse glass mixes.5 42.assumed to reflect the bond between the glass aggregate and the cement matrix.1 22. Effect Water Interaction Effect Strength Strength Mix Mix Demand B o n d ) (MPa) (MPa) ( 12%/0% CNFA O%/O% NoFA 39.1.2 39. as discussed above.5 42.2 39. COMPONENTS OF STRENGTH EFFECTS.2 22.4 45. Conuol Control Expr.0 9.9 23.8 20.2 52.1: The effects of water demand increase steadily with increasing glass content. . TAEILE 5.5 26.5 42.5 15.2 42.5 52.
and present a large. and increases slightly bemeen 12% and 36% glass before dropping to near zero for 90% glass. rather than the change in aggregate.91 The effect of the interaction with glass on fly ash is substantial for all of the rnixes with coarse glass and moderate-alkali cement. smooth. though this may be due to other variables that were not included in the experimental design. For the mixes that include low-alkali cement and air-entrainment (mixes CE/FC and OOJFG). freeze-thaw testing and exposure field trials have not been previously researched with waste glass aggregate. The coarse glass aggregate particles. Thus this work is useful in demonstrating that the freeze-thaw durability of waste glass mixes is generally promising . DURABILITY To the author's knowledge. The high interaction at moderate glass contents along with a low interaction at high glass contents points to ASR as the likely cause of the interaction. indicating that the change in cement is most probably responsible for the difference. the relatively good performance of the fine glass compared to the coarse glass aggregate is probably because the dimensions of the interfacial microstructure ( 4 0 .150 pm thick) are of the same order of magnitude as the size of the glass aggregate particle itself. The intrinsic effect of fine-glass-only aggregate (OOLFG) is much smaller. and flat interface that can produce a definite plane of weakness. This effect correlates with a change in the glass form and gradation. the magnitude of this effect is much lower. as will be discussed in the next section. and in the analysis and conclusions that the intrinsic effect for this mix is assumed to be 4% follow. are many times larger than the thickness of the interfacial zone. even becoming positive for one of the mixes. on the other hand.it is able to . The intrinsic effect is substantial at all glass contents with coarse glass and increases slightly with increasing glass content up to 90%. and so the microstructure is able to bridge over the glass aggregate particle and incorporate it into its structure.
Some of the Class F fly ashes commonly used in concrete production do not fall within the ASTM guidelines limiting S03. - (1986) have specifically studied variability in fly ash sources and have suggested more liberal parameters than the ASTM guidelines as acceptable for use in concrete. and other critical parameters. however. Several researchers. are also much more variable than many of the higher grade Class C fly ashes. particle size distribution. with an average weight loss of ~ 2 % compared to 51% for the control mixes. which are most effective in mitigating ASR. et al. Durability under potential ASR attack will be discussed at length in its own section. Both the 20%/20% OO/FI glass aggregate mix and the 0%/20% control mix used in the severely exposed drive-out section of the sidew'ak are showing minimal signs of deterioration. free carbon. EFFECTS OF FLYASH Because fly ash will generally be necessary as part of a mix design with waste glass aggregate. Weight loss results are somewhat less promising over 350 cycles.parameters such as water demand or demand for air-entraining admixture can vary by as much as a factor of two. Based on visual assessment. The observations made during this research suggest that consistent effects cannot be assumed either between several suppliers of fly ash or between shipments of a single supplier . as has been detailed in Chapter 3 with regard to the fly ashes used in this research. especially because the Class F fly ashes. including Cabrera. the field trial exposure test sections have little noticeable degradation due to either abrasion or freeze-thaw exposure. the effects of fly ash on the concrete mix must be taken into account. Control mixes with no glass display slightly more stiffness degradation over 350 cycles of exposure than the OO/FG mixes. but acceptable for the glass aggregate. .match the performance of low d c ratio control concrete with optimal proportions of glass aggregate.
STRENGTHS rnWASHED VS.In combination with waste glass.08 45. as well as sugar and other chemical or food contaminants. and the effects of interactions between them have been separated in Table 5. followed by higher longterm strength.07 11.41 The differences evident in this comparison include the effects of a slight change in gradation of the glass aggregate due to the removal of some of the fine particles in the washing process . must be considered and its necessity must be clear before it is undertaken. Normally. as shown in Table 5. UNWASHED GLASS AGGREGATES. plastic. usually producing somewhat lower strengths initially. since the cost of washing waste glass aggregate may equal or exceed the cost of the raw glass aggregate itself. fly ash has a consistent effect on strength development. and the waste glass can even interact with and moddy the behavior of the fly ash itself. and other light components of the original form of the glass as packaging. it will typically include contaminants: paper.2.42 79% 59% 56% 3 1. Washing glass aggregate before use has an overwhelming effect on strength. above and discussed more thoroughly in the next section. BEHAVIOR DURING PROCESSING AND IN FRESH CONCRETE AND W A T E R DEMAND As glass aggregate is received from a recycling plant. many of the potential effects of glass aggregate are modified or masked by the effects of fly ash. the effects of glass. or not. The effects of either removing these by washing.17 18.2 where the strength without washing is indicated as a fraction of the strength with washing. Because this pattern can be modified by the presence of glass.27 25. 5.1. TABLE (MPa) Strength with Washing (MPa) Strength without Washing Strength without Washing 48%/20% CAIFA (28 days) 24%/25% OOJFG (28 days) 24%125%OOPG (56 days) 14. the effects of fly ash.
which is the primary direct effect of a change in gradation. because the wlc ratio must be adjusted to keep workability within a usable range. The effect of the gradation of the glass aggregate on strength will be discussed below. but there is some effect even with the optimal fine glass aggregates. EFFECTS OF PARTICLE SHAPE AND TEXTURE The most obvious fundamental causes of the various strength effects of glass aggregate are the particle shape and the texture. and FF vs. Even after washing. Any fine material used in concrete will exhibit a demand for water to wet the surface area of the material and develop the electrostatic double layer necessary for it to move easily within the fresh m i x .3. The coarse glass retains the plate-like shape of the bottles from which it is derived. FG in Figures 3. AU of these effects are much more evident with coarse glass aggregate or poorly graded fine glass aggregate. These effects on water demand and workability affect strength as well. which differ substantially between natural and glass aggregates. 3.2 and 3.94 (compare gradations of glasses CA vs. however. the effects of glass aggregate on the properties of fresh concrete are dramatic: a substantial decrease in slump and workability for a given water content along with a somewhat reduced frnishability and some increased tendency toward bleeding and segregation.1. FA vs. respectively). with the finer gradations becoming more and more regular in their shape and losing . CB. but it is clear that the small change in gradation involved in the washing procedure does not account for the majority of the change in strength. Glass' characteristics in this regard and its interaction with fly ash will be discussed below along with their combined interactions with air-entraining admixtures and water reducers. particularly since the large difference in strength between washed and unwashed glass aggregate is not accompanied by a significant difference in water demand. FB.
If a pozzolanic reaction then occurs.r 5n m is generally quite regular (see Figure 1. This same property of coarse glass aggregate may prevent it from developing the cohesive layer of fresh cement paste that normally allows coarse aggregate particles to move easily within a mass of fresh concrete. The particle shape along with the smooth texture of the glass aggregate pieces are certainly a large part of the reason for the increased water demand and decreased workability of concrete with glass aggregate. This regular shape is not assured by the simple fact of the glass having a fine gradation. The flaky particles in the lab-ground aggregates (glass FD and FE) were too small to observe similar behavior visually. this layer may be incorporated into the more fluid ASR gel which does not contribute to strength. This tendency to collect bleed water at interfaces is a common cause of poor strength among concretes with poorly graded aggregates (Roberts 1989). and the smooth surface texture of the glass coarse aggregate may simply aggravate this effect.some of their sharpest and most angular edges.6). The coarse glass pieces especially produced observable anomalous behavior in the fresh concrete. but their higher water demand suggests that the mechanisms involved were similar. along with increased bleeding and segregation. If ASR occurs. on the other hand. well-oriented CH crystals to form. Glass aggregate that was crushed to less than ~1. however -the glass ground in the laboratory. with visible bleeding around the glass particles and extremely poor cohesion with the cement paste. exhibited a very flaky particle shape due to the method of grinding used. This possibility is supported by SEM images of the concrete samples in this . glasses FD and FE.1 through 1. The flat particles with a smooth surface texture may develop a weaker interface due to the collection of bleed water along the smooth and flat interface that allows a continuous layer of relatively weak. Poorly shaped aggregates are generally known to produce this type of behavior. it may consume this layer of CH and redeposit it as a stronger layer of CSH .an effect noted by Roberts (1989).
and its amorphous morphology is at least similar to the outer shell of most fly ashes. If glass aggregate has a distinctive effect on the development of the ionic double layer. powdered glass has possible uses similar to those for Class F fly ashes. The effects of glass form and gradation on ASR will be discussed below. fine glass. flat and elongated particles. coarse glass. sharp edges. the fine glass produced approximately the same or slightly harsher workability than similar sand. It is difficult. It will be necessary to conduct further . At the same time. continuous gaps at many of the interfaces between coarse glass aggregate and cement paste. Making comparisons between materials of similar fineness. with apparent contradictions between accelerated ASR results and strength results. powdered glass. sand vs.there seems to be a substantial correlation between a finer particle size and a more regular particle shape. the coarse glass produced substantially harsher workability than similarly graded gravel. this effect may change as an aggregate particle becomes smaller and more regular and has fewer distinctive. gravel vs. EFFECTS OF GLASS AGGREGATE GRADATION It is clear that smaller. and fly ash vs. and the powdered glass produced slightly better workability than similarly graded fly ash. GLASS EFFECTSOF POWDERED While waste glass in typical crushed sizes might replace sand as fine aggregate.research showing smooth. to separate the effects of the particle shape from the effects of gradation . sub-angular particles are far superior to larger. It is possible that powdered glass will provide the same effects in concrete that Class F fly ashes do. but current results are somewhat ambiguous. there may be physiochemical reasons for a smaller glass particle performing better than a larger one.e. however. i. It has a similar chemical composition.
The effects of powdered glass on the properties of fresh concrete are generally positive and encouraging. the gradation and particle shape must be controlled to the same extent as they would be for waste glass aggregate. These effects are probably due to the very low free carbon content of powdered glass compared to similarly graded Class F fly ashes. overwhelmed any ability of the powdered glass to mitigate the ASR. including long-term concrete prism ASR testing to determine what effects powdered glass has on ASR and whether it is usable for some of the same purposes as fly ash. it was not possible to separate the conflicting effects of ASR and the interaction of ASR with pozzolanic strength development from hydration and strength development. If powdered waste glass is used. The likely cause of the differences between Class F fly ash and powdered glass are the alkali contents and the slightly different morphologies. The demand for water increases only slightly when cement is supplemented with small amounts of powdered glass (1% . are ambiguous. but within the experimental design used in this research. The effects of powdered glass on strength. it is possible that some ASR deterioration is taking place. The causes of this behavior are unclear. and a somewhat finer gradation overall have probably liberated a much higher concentration of alkalis than that liberated by the fly ash. This. It has been suggested that many of . though some of them resumed normal strength growth eventually. however. combined with the completely amorphous structure of glass compared to an amorphous layer surrounding a crystalline core for fly ash. combined with the lower quantities of powdered glass used as a cement supplement rather than a cement replacement. The higher alkali content of the powdered glass.research. Several of the test mixes lost strength at some point during their development.2. The demand for air-entraining admixture is likewise decreased slightly.5%) and then decreases gradually for supplements up to 20%.
glass has an effect on the . and their results suggest that ground particles of a similar gradation will have largely the same effects as fly ash formed by precipitation and only slightly higher water demand. et al. 1995) have examined this. EFFECTS OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN MATERIALS EFFECTS OF INTERACTION WITH GLASS ON BEHAVIOR OF FLY ASH A substantial effect of glass aggregate on strength development by fly ash has been observed.the positive effects of fly ash. since powdered waste glass is ground rather than being formed by precipitation. thereby reducing the strength of the concrete by as much as 20%.. Several researchers (Monzb.2 are presented to investigate this effect.1 and associated discussion). on the other hand. however. Figures 5.25% (see Table 5. in some cases eliminating nearly all of the strength development expected from the fly ash itself.g. If glass were to have no effect on the pattern of strength development. all of the curves on one figure would coincide because the curve would be a characteristic of the type and amount of fly ash and all of the curves on one figure have the same type and amount of fly ash. This effect is most noticeable in those mixes that have a nearpessimum proportion of glass aggregate. Each of the strengths in Figures 5. this alone might significantly change its effect on concrete.1 and 5. If.1 and 5.2 has been normalized as the ratio of the strength of the given m i x to the strength of the equivalent mix with 0%fly ash at the same age (e. but rather only on the overall strength developed. especially reduction of water demand. are largely attributable to the spherical shape resulting from the formation of fly ash by precipitation in air. the normalized strength of 12%/35% at 90 days is the ratio of the strength of 12%/35% at 90 days to the strength of 12%/0% at 90 days).
but with no interaction between glass and fly ash. and the 12% 24% and 48% glass curves grouped together.1. in an overall order 36%<24%<48%<12%.rather. this may be taken as an indication of an interaction between glass and fly ash -with the glass reducing the strength developed by the fly ash.1) is that the curves for 24%. Because the effects of glass aggregate alone are already discounted. and the 0% . what is observed for 20% fly ash (Figure 5. 10 1000 Neither of the fore mentioned patterns are observed .pattern of strength development. 36% and 48% glass nearly coincide. With 35% fly ash (Figure 5. DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTHBY GLASS CONTENT -20% FLYASH. then a l l of the curves on each figure would end up at approximately the same level in the end because the effect of the glass aggregate alone on the overall level of strength development is already discounted by the normalization. with 36% glass at the bottom. while the curve for 0% glass is far above the rest.2). with the curve for 12% glass somewhat below them and the 90% glass curve significantly above the others. The curve for 90% glass ends up far above the others. the pattern changes. 100 Age (days) FIGURE 5.
it seems that the glass is again affecting the strength development by fly ash. but does so to a lesser degree at 90% replacement than at lower replacement levels.glass curve is again at the top. while use of 90% glass aggregate reduces it only moderately. Noting that the effect of the glass alone is already discounted by the normalization. Several causes may be contributing to h s behavior: It appears that fly ash develops much of its ability to mitigate ASR by acting as a very fine and reactive material that forms a low C:S CSH gel that is able to adsorb alkalis and become a sort of alkali-silica gel without subsequently causing deleterious expansion thus simultaneously increasing the amount of ASR reactive material in the mix and reducing the pessimum proportion of the total mix greatly. and allows greater strength development at later ages relative to other glass contents. This pushes the total mix far . Moderate amounts of glass cause a large reduction in the strength development.
however.out onto the over-pessimum portion of the ASR pessimum curve. is that the gel thus developed by the fly ash is not able to contribute strength to the concrete. The result is actually a weaker paste-aggregate bond because of the consumption of the CH crystals at the interface which. and flat surface which encourages the growth of a large. The fly ash is also unable to densify and improve the paste-aggregate bond as it might otherwise do because the CSH developed with ASR migrates away from the pasteaggregate interface after formation (Hudec and Banahene 1993). This decrease in strength development is counter to the hypothesis by some researchers that fly ash mitigates ASR by strengthening the concrete matrix. because of the large. further contributing to the loss in strength. This effect may be compounded by glass aggregate. al. 1994). and thereby reduces the ASR deterioration. The alkali ions incorporated into the CSH at low C:S ratios may also expel ca2' ions from the gel (Qian. . et. did provide some strength. though weak. Other effects that work hand-in-hand with this is that as the alkali content of CSH gel increases its viscosity also decreases (Jones 1988). and the alkali-gel that is generated is distributed throughout the matrix among the fly ash particles rather than being concentrated around reactive aggregate particles. which is able to be absorbed by the concrete matrix. smooth. especially coarse glass aggregate. These two effects together change the ASR gel development from a few large pockets of viscous gel to many more small pockets of less viscous gel. continuous layer of CH at the interface. rather than a strengthening of the interface as CH crystals are replaced by CSH. and its production consumes fly ash which would otherwise react to form structural CSH gel. though the low-viscosity gel may still densify the matrix and reduce the permeability. The effect on strength.
3.3. and to powdered glass content in Figure 5.The same interaction is also visible in Figure 5. The water demand of mixes with high-range water reducer (HRWR) is related to glass content in Figure 5. A REDUCER ~ INTERACTIONS WITH AIR-ENTRAINING ADMIXTUREAND W The amount of air-entraining admixture required is related to the type and content of glass aggregate in Figure 5. indicating a loss of strength with increasing fly ash content . FA F2 24%/y% Fine GIs.5. where strength is presented at an age of 180 days and k normalized only according to wl(c +A. FA F2 Phase-I1 CEIFC. FA FI Fly Ash Content (% of Cementitious) FIGURE 5. The important observation is that the fitted lines for 0% glass with fly ash F1 and F2 are similar and positive. . while the lines for 12% through 48% glass are negative. to the type and content of fly ash in Figure 5. rather than glass content.6.suggesting that the fly ash is not contributing as much. RELATION OF STRENGTH TO FLY ASH CONTENT -MODERATE ALKALI MIXES. 4 20%/y% Fine GIs.4. so the effect of the glass aggregate itself is still present.7 with several fly ash contents noted on the figure. FA F1 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 90%ly%. CCIFA. to strength with these glass contents. if at all.
5 to 6 times the air-entraining admixture required for control concrete at 35% fly ash replacement.4.4 is actually a of fly ash rather than glass. The n effect upward trend with increasing glass content that is apparent in Figure 5. glass aggregate is seen to have only a small effect on the airentraining admixture required . with typical increases from 1 to 2.most of the demand is clearly deriving from the fly ash. i x with no glass and 25% fly ash (265 mum3/1% Air) to similar mixtures with the control m 24% glass (likewise at 260 to 270 m ~ m ~ / l Air).5. ranging linearly up to 2.5 that both the type and content of fly ash have substantial effects on the admixture requirements. It is clear from Figure 5.5 times for 0% to 15% fly ash. and is a result of the higher glass contents generally being accompanied by higher fly ash contents as well. This may be seen by comparing. AIR-ENTRAINWG ADMIXTURE REQUIREDBY TYPE AND CONTENT OF GLASS AGGREGATE.Aggregate) FIGURE 5.4 and 5. % 50 0% 12% 24% 36% Glass Content (% of Total. . for example.103 Comparing Figures 5.
.5.6. AIR-ENTRAINING ADMIXTURE REQUIRED BY TYPE AND CONTENT OF FLY ASH.0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25 % Fly Ash Content (% of Total Cementitious) 30% FIGURE 5. AIR-EI~IR~ING ADMIXTURE REQUIRED BY CONTENT OF POWDEREDGLASS. I o 20% Glass Aggr No Glass <I 0 b I 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Powdered Glass Content (% of Cement) FIGURE 5.
WATER DEMAND WITH AND WITHOUT HRWR BY GLASS CONTENT.6 shows the air-entraining admixture required by various amounts of powdered glass as a cement supplement. 12% 24% Glass Content FIGURE 5. while for mixes with either glass or fly ash.in contrast to the fly ashes used. This effect does not necessarily cause an insurmountable problem for the use of either glass aggregate or fly ash . there is a large effect of adding HRWR.it may simply limit the range of usable wlc ratios at a given HRWR dosage. For mixes with no glass and no fly ash. . There is a slight beneficial effect at all levels of addition less than 20%. thus limiting demand .7. or both. Because the powdered glass has an extremely low free carbon content. which have such a large demand due to their own free carbon content that any reducing effect due to workability enhancement is negligible.Figure 5. These mixes may require greater dosages of HRWR for significant effects to be observed. it is able to lubricate the m i x and reduce the need for air-entraining admixture to act as a particle surfactant and allowing it to stabilize air bubbles instead.7). there is only a small effect at the dosages of HRWR used. Similar effects are noted when comparing the effects of HRWR on the various mixes (Figure 5.
Pessimum behavior is a phenomenon wherein the greatest expansion and the greatest deterioration due to ASR are observed not at the highest levels of replacement of natural aggregate by glass. and the amount of gel expansion that is able to be accommodated by the concrete matrix within a given time period . is what has become known as 'pessimum' behavior. A finer glass gradation . certain combinations of glass exceed allowable expansion criteria as early as 28 days after mixing. The expansion observed in a particular case is determined by the total potential for ASR expansion as determined by the amounts of the various reactants present. pessimum phenomenon is expected to occur are summarized in Chapter 2.L~LKALI-SILICA REACTIVITY AND MITIGATION R E A ~ ~ Waste glass is clearly highly alkali-silica reactive. Pessimum behavior was observed for the glass aggregate studied in this research. the expansion and Possible mechanisms whereby the deterioration are less than at the pessimum level.probably influenced by the viscosity or other properties of the gel. PESSIMUM BEHAVIOR One of the defining characteristics of ASR. The mechanisms of ASR expansion and deterioration are complex and not known with certainty. the rate of the alkali-silica reaction and gel production. When used with moderate-alkali cement and no fly ash or other measures to mitigate the reaction. Either above or below this pessimum level. and one which many other researchers have also observed. and several noteworthy conclusions may be drawn from the results: This study showed that the pessimum proportion of glass aggregate is not an unchanging parameter unlike the results obtained by previous researchers. but rather at some moderate level.
It might be noted that these observations of pessimum behavior's relation to surface area and thereby to particle size may be limited to glass aggregates. .This may indicate that ASR with fine glass depends on the mortar fraction of the mix. at 12% glass.at 0% glass. has a crystalline or semicrystalline structure. 20% fly ash provides the minimum expansion. a pattern emerges when comparing mixes with various fly ash contents (Figure 5. Second. and with the addition of fly ash and with age the pessimum level remains approximately constant and the peak moves to a slightly higher glass content. the lowest expansion is generally not found with the highest fly ash content. the pessimum amount was ~ 5 0 % . while glass is reactive because it is amorphous.e. i.. This is likely because opal is reactive because it is cryptocristalline. rather a minimum expansion is observed at some lower fly ash content and the expansion rises slightly as the fly ash content is increased beyond that for a minimum expansion. while for Beltane Opal it takes place throughout the volume of the aggregate and is independent of particle size. the amount of fly ash required for minimum expansion increases with increasing glass content . i. all of its silica structures are weakly held.e. but there are no openings which particularly allow access to the particle interior (Gillott and Beddoes 1981).reduces the pessimum proportion. while in the accelerated tests.8): First. Figg (1981) has observed that ASR is primarily a surface phenomenon for Pyrex glass aggregate. while the coarse aggregate is relatively insignificant. EFFECTS OF FLY ASHON ASR In examining the expansion of ASR concrete prisms. The concrete prism tests with fine glass aggregate displayed pessimum behavior at ~ 2 5 % replacement of natural aggregate by glass. but with micropores in the structure which allow reactive species to penetrate.
........... b ..... ...... ......... -............................20% fly ash.. .......... ................................ ..... ................... I& .... ... ... ... .. ....... ... which is a phenomenon wherein a variation in glass content produces a maximum expansion at some intermediate glass content......)' -.. ............ .. ...................... ........... I I r .................-.......... . .............. CAIFA.............. ..... ....... .............. ........ ... . this is a minimum expansion at an intermediate (rather than a maximum)fly ash content.................. .. .........8............. .. ................ " ........ .... . .-............ ....-............_ -Mod-Alk Criterion ............... ' : : ........................... At high glass contents (90% glass aggregate)...................... ............-.. ........ and at 90% glass..... .......... .............. .... .. ...... .... ................. ..... ............ possibly because of the very slightly amount of reactive aggregate present.. glass is not as reactive............+ .......... ........................ FA F1 .. ... ......._............. 30% fly ash provides the minimum expansion...... .33 suggests that the ability of fly ash to mitigate ASR also varies with the amount of glass present. ................. ........... CCIFA....Mod. but it is also evident that fly ash is not able to .. ... because it is beyond the pessirnum proportion of glass.. at 48% glass............ ............ but the others show this effect very clearly............ 12%/y%..... ........ ... ..... .. .....................-.: ................................... ...... ...........................--.... ... -Mod............. ..---.... ...... 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35 % Fly Ash Content (% of total cementitious) In Figure 5...... The 0% glass series trend is not entirely clear............ ................... ..............-....... Note that this is not the pessimum effect.................. CAEA........ ..... ....Mod.-....... FA F1 -9Mod......_ ....... . --.......... ....:................. ..........__ -............... ... ..... L ........... O%/y%.............................. ...................... .................. .... 25% fly ash.........__ -.... FA F1 -........ ....... an age which the low-alkali mixes have not yet reached........................... ........ '*....... 48%/y%.. FA F1 .... .......... the moderate-alkali coarse glass series are shown to allow analysis at 1095 days. ......... Rather.........-* ....... \............................. ....... ......... ... ......... . ............. Figure 4. .....0 ... ........... 90%/y%.................. ........... ....... ........... ................. ...
g. this behavior must be taken into account when selecting aggregate proportions. and air-entrainment show promise as partial solutions to ASR in this research. As a finer gradation is used. but cannot be relied upon to consistently provide complete mitigation. though the mixes at the pessimum glass content with adequate fly ash for mitigation are still below or only slightly above the criterion. while the use of LiOH is beyond the scope of this research.33) that by 1095 days. particularly in the more variable mixing and exposure environments of field concrete. and are reflected by some of the experimental mixes in this research: judicious proportion of natural and glass aggregate. for a CA/FA mixture with an average glass particle size of 3 . Judicious aggregate proportioning. e. use of LiOH or other alkali salts as admixtures. the pessimum proportion is about 36%. Fly ash is the only mitigation measure which may be unequivocally recommended based on the results of this research. the pessimum proportion drops. using low-alkali cement. several other possible mitigation schemes have been used in practice or in research in the past. use of low-alkali cement. M~IGATION Besides using fly ash.4 rnm.it may prove effective with further experimentation with a wider range of glass aggregate-powdered glass combinations. other measures provide insufficient assurance of mitigation. Note (Figure 4. all of the 90% glass mixes have exceeded the allowable expansion criterion. OFTEibU PROPORTIONS OF WASTE GLASS AGGREGATE AND FLYASH In light of the pessimum behavior of glass with regard to both ASR expansion and strength. The results of using powdered glass are inconclusive .109 limit reactions over the long term at these glass contents either. and using powdered glass in place of fly ash. while fine glass . air-entrainment.
possibly ~ 1 0 % . cements and other admixtures should be selected with the goal of minimizing the amount of fly ash necessary for ASR mitigation.5 . For the glasses FG and FI used in this research. .using a slightly coarser but still acceptable glass gradation will allow use of more glass aggregate with acceptable long-term performance. well graded waste glass aggregate. because the fly ash used to mitigate ASR will demand water while adding little to the strength of the concrete. though the results suggest that high quality fly ash with optimum glass aggregate may be effective at somewhat lower levels. For the cement-fly ash-aggregate combinations studied. the optimum proportion of fly ash is ~20% of the total cementitious material.0 mm have pessimum proportions around 24%. USEOF WASTE GLASS AGGREGA'IE Waste glass aggregate will generally be obtained from commercial municipal recyclers. A proportion of glass aggregate somewhat below the pessimum proportion for that gradation . Optimizing the glass gradations and proportions would thus require meeting the following: A fine. Fly ash of appropriate gradation and quantity used to mitigate ASR. Higher than optimum proportions of fly ash produce somewhat higher expansion because of the ASR reactivity of the fly ash itself. a 15% to 20% replacement of aggregate with glass would be required. such as Glass FG used in this study to replace the natural sand in the concrete mix design.mixtures with average glass particle sizes of 0.1. Aggregates. and the condition and physical properties of the glass must be controlled to produce acceptable concrete.
The glass must be well-graded and must be provided within a consistent gradation. have been shown to have an overwhelming effect on strength (up to a 40% loss of strength at 28 days) in the quantities typically found on unwashed municipal waste glass. The glass must be clean. Laboratory experience demonstrated that either of these particle shapes can be produced during glass processing. rather than flakes or plates. or at least regular. especially sugars. depending on the crushing method used. such as paper or plastic remnants. sub-angular sand. though the effects of these parameters on the mix was not included in the scope of this research. also have an effect. The strength of the glass aggregate and the composition of the glass are probably also significant. controllable problems with glass aggregate may be compounded if water reducers are not used judiciously or if an otherwise unacceptable waste glass aggregate is used with excessive quantities of water reducers. Some crushing and processing methods produce severely uniformly graded aggregate. Other contaminants. This problem may be exacerbated by the washing process if care is not taken to avoid loss of fine material. USEOF MINERAL ADMIXTURES INWASTE GLASS AGGREGATE Optimizing the type of fly ash is outside of the primary scope of this research and will generally require some trial in any case. though they are not as severe and have not been quantified. but several points may be noted: . It will generally be necessary to use water reducers to counter the water demand of even optimal glass aggregate. Food or chemical contaminants. The segregation and bleeding what have been observed as minor.The particle shape must approach that of a nearly cubic.
as has been discussed above.and possibly the CaO and MgO contents of the fly ash or powdered glass will be factors in their effectiveness in the mitigation of ASR (Kobayashi. fly ash alkali content. among many others) suggests that about 5% available alkali content in the fly ash is a reasonable limit. and glass aggregate reactivity in determining the extent and rate of ASR deterioration was not addressed directly within the scope of this research. al. 1989). Several factors suggest that the unaccelerated concrete . to reduce the additional admixture demand. The gradation of the fly ash may affect the ability of the fly ash to mitigate ASR. with fly ashes near 5% being accepted only after trials.The alkali content of the fly ash should be kept as low as possible. provided that the of larger particles does not drive up the available alkal~ and free carbon contents. The SiOz. its usability for the fundamental study of ASR is limited. but these effects are beyond the scope of this research. the free carbon content of fly ash used with waste glass aggregate should be kept to a minimum. et al. but the results from trials with powdered waste glass and the experiences of other researchers (BCrub6. A moderate gradation may provide longer-lasting mitigation of ASR than a fine-gradation fly ash. ASR TESTPROCEDURES While the accelerated mortar bar test (ASTM C1260) is gaining acceptance within the concrete industry. et. 1995b. The interaction of fly ash gradation. therefore. The effects of fly ash on air-entraining and water reducer admixture requirements are exacerbated by the presence of glass aggregate. and is probably the best available screening test. Current results suggest that a fly ash with a moderate rather than a very fine gradation may be better.
20% fine natural aggregate and 20% fine glass aggregate would be best represented by a mortar bar with 50%fine natural aggregate and 50%fine glass aggregate. selected according to the manufacturer's instructions before the I-IRWR series began. Particularly important is a consistent equivalence between aggregate proportions in the mortar bar and aggregate proportions in the corresponding concrete. . For example. The difference in the pessirnum proportion in the concrete prism tests (pessirnum at 36% - 48% with coarse and fine glass vs. especially in combination. If the reactive aggregate is in the fine aggregate fraction of the concrete. the gradation must be changed before it can be used in the mortar bar test and any interpretation of the results beyond a screening evaluation must be made very cautiously. several areas were identifiable as potential future research areas: Only one dosage of high-range water reducer (HRWR) was used. AREASREQUIRING FURTHER RESEARCH As this research was completed and the data analysis proceeded. displayed much smaller response to HRWR than the control mixes. a larger dosage may be appropriate and might be useable without the airentrainment destabilization which is characteristic of a HRWR overdose.prism test is still necessary at least as a supplement to ASTM C1260 when results beyond a screening evaluation are required. a concrete m aggregate. I is present in the coarse aggregate fraction of the concrete. Because glass and fly ash.24% with fine glass) also suggests that ASR might f the reactive aggregate best be regarded as a phenomenon of the mortar fraction of the mix. making the mortar bar equivalent to the mortar fraction of the concrete (including the reactive aggregate) gives results i x with 60% coarse natural consistent with concrete prism tests. 20% .
20% cement supplement). SEM and optical microscopy and chemical characterization of glass and of concrete pore solutions would be ideal components of such a program.114 The Powdered Glass Series was conceived as parallel to similar mixes with silica fume. the powdered glass series could be repeated with powdered glass used as a cement replacement in proportions from 10% 40%. According to this model. As powdered glass might be a useful outlet for waste glass recycling in and of itself. with powdered glass supplementing rather than replacing cement and used in fairly small quantities (1% . . experimental trials might be made both with and without waste glass aggregate included as part of the mix. A more thorough understanding of the interaction between glass and fly ash might be developed by a direct approach to an understanding of ASR mechanisms (rather than only observing symptoms). The powdered glass might be better modeled as similar to Class F fly ash.
SUMMARY.CHAPTER 6 . Evaluation of the experimental mixes included consideration of compressive strength. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPLICATION An experimental research program was conducted to: (1) identlfy characteristics of waste glass that produce satisfactory concrete for pavement applications. . and experimental work conducted by the author. water-reducing admixtures. Some study of the interactions between the experimental materials and air-entraining admixtures. results of others at the University of Wisconsin. fly ash and fine powdered waste glass was included to aid application of the conclusions to pavement trials. and resistance to ASR deterioration at ages firom one month to three years. fieezelthaw resistance. (2) to document the alkali-silica reactivity of waste glass aggregate and determine means of mitigating this ASR. and (3) to determine the effects of waste glass aggregate and powdered waste glass on the strength and durability of concrete. The performance of glasdfly ash concrete was evaluated. and other researchers' published results were used to synthesize conclusions about the processes and mechanisms of ASR and strength development in glasdfly ash concrete.
Finally. 3.e. or a change in the behavior of the . The effects of glass aggregate on strength have been be divided into three catagories: 1. In the high-alkali ASR environment. 2. Thus rather than form structural CSH gel. thereby resulting in a lower strength.at 180 to 365 days ranging from less than 10 MPa up to greater than 50 MPa. there is a strength loss intrinsic to the glass aggregate. with the fine glass mixes exhibiting slightly lower demand than the coarse glass mixes. fly ash may form a fluid alkaliCSH gel that moves away from the aggregate particles and is unable to densify and improve the paste-aggregate bond. This effect increases steadily with increasing glass content. leaving instead a weaker interface devoid of both CH crystals and CSH gel.STRENGTH Strength has been used in this research as the primary measure of the effects of glass aggregate on concrete. The range of strengths observed were very broad . it cannot be accounted for by either a change in wlc ratio or air content. Satisfaction of this water demand increases the wlc ratio of the concrete. The results obtained with various gla~ contents points to ASR as the likely cause of the interaction. reducing the strength of concrete mixes made from typical proportions of glass and fly ash by as much as 25%.. the low C:S ratio gel formed by fly ash becomes an alkali-CSH gel of low viscosity. This effect is substantial for all of the mixes with moderate-alkali cement. while for the mixes that include low-alkali cement the magnitude of this effect is much lower. Glass aggregate displays a water demand for workability greater than that of natural aggregate. i. Glass aggregate reduces the strength developed by fly ash in the cementlfly ash m i x in situations in which ASR is active.
. CAEA & CEFC Glass Content (% of Total Aggr. 10% ater Demand. CEJFC 640% (d -70% Interaction. This effect is probably due to a difference in pasteaggregate bond for a glass particle vs.1.150 pm thick) are of the same order of magnitude as the size of the glass aggregate particle itself. The relatively good performance of fine glass compared to coarse glass aggregate is probabIy because the dimensions of the interfacial microstructure (-50 . OOFG Interaction. CNFA Intrinsic Effect. 5 U 0% A b .. Low-Alk. Low-Alk Cement 3 -50% . Table 5. This effect primarily reflects a change in the glass form and gradation. and flat interface which can produce a definite plane of weakness. on the other hand.Intrinsic Effect. smooth. The coarse glass aggregate particles. OO/FG A 5.. a natural aggregate particle. CNFA & Mod-Alk + Total Effect. Mod-Alk Cement 2 -40% 0 Interaction. and can amount to anything from a 25% strength loss to a 5% strength gain. CAIFA & CE/FC . U H 9) T o t a l Effect.) . and so the microstructure is able to bridge over the fine glass aggregate particle and incorporate it into its structure. and is illustrated graphically in Figure 6.Water Demand. CNFA & C E R Water Demand.. are many times larger than the thickness of the interfacial zone and present a large.1.10% CA -20% o -30% W Intrinsic Effect.cementitious components of the mix. Mod-Alk Cement -80% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90 .. The contribution of each of these effect for several representative mixes was presented in.
1 illustrates the dramatic loss in strength due to the three combined effects in a m i x with indescriminate use of coarse glass and moderate-alkali cement .5%. By using low-alkali rather than moderate-alkali cement as well.24% of the total aggregate. the loss due to water demand may be reduced from =lo% (with glasses CAEA and CEIFC) to about 0% . . are the gains which can be realized by judicious selection of materials and proportions: By limiting the glass aggregate to a limited fine gradation and a more regular particle shape (glass OO/FG) at a glass content of 20% . and the loss due to the intrinsic effect may likewise be reduced from =30% (with glass C M A ) to about 0% . however.Figure 6. while the field trial exposure tests sections had little noticeable degradation due to either abrasion or freeze-thaw exposure.5%. DURABILITY The freeze-thaw durability of concrete with glass aggregate is promising. Mixes with optimal glass aggregate (the OOIFG mixes in the laboratory and the OO/FI mixes in the field) performed as well as or slightly better than the control mixes. Also illustrated in Figure 6. the loss due to the to -5%. With optimal proportions of glass aggregate it is possible to match the performance of low wlc ratio control concrete in accelerated freeze-thaw testing.1.24% to a loss of about 0% to 15%.a loss in strength ranging from 50% with 12% glass up to 80% with 90% glass. interaction between glass and fly ash may be reduced from ~ 2 0 % The total effect of these design improvements is to reduce strength loss from ~ 6 0 % at a glass content of 20% .
as a cement replacement at levels of 10% . possibly because ASR deterioration took place beyond the ability of the powdered glass to mitigate. i. Powdered glass as a cement supplement has only slight effects on water demand and air-entraining admixture requirements. powdered glass was used in a manner analogous to silica fume.e.40% of the total cementitious materials. For 90% glass aggregate no amount of fly ash 535% replacement of cement was able to mitigate ASR.48% glass aggregate it was found that some proportion of fly ash reliably mitigates ASR. 20% . The strength results are ambiguous. but based on the subsequently observed behavior it appears that powdered glass might be better modeled as similar to Class F fly ash. . When used with moderate-alkali cement and no fly ash or other measures to mitigate the reaction. 50% of fine aggregate in the mortar bar test) suggest that ASR depends on the mortar fraction with regard to critical proportions of glass and fly ash. At proportions of 12% . its has potential for use as a mineral admixture.24% of total aggregate with fine glass vs. Observations that the pessimum content varies with glass gradation (pessimum at 36% .20%) addition levels. either with or without waste glass aggregate. i.119 ASR REACTIVITY Waste glass is clearly highly alkali-silica reactive.48% of total aggregate with coarse glass vs. as a cement supplement at low (1% . EFFECTS OF FLYASH The effectiveness of fly ash in mitigation of ASR depends on the amount of reactive glass aggregate in the mix. EFFECTS OF POWDERED GLASS When waste glass is powdered very finely.e. In this research. certain combinations of glass exceed allowable expansion criteria as early as 28 days after mixing.
Glass coarser than about 1. This proportion maximizes the use of glass while remaining within the range of glass contents in . fly ash does not have much of an effect other than possibly to delay ASR slightly. It causes a simultaneous reduction of the pessimum proportion of the total mix and an effective increase in the amount of ASR reactive material to far beyond the pessimum proportion. which is able to be absorbed by the concrete matrix. combined with a decrease in the viscosity of CSH gel with increasing alkali content (Jones 1988) and a distribution of the reaction more evenly among the fly ash particles throughout the concrete matrix. and to ~ 1 0 0 % of the strength of the control at 365 days. To design an effective mix with glass aggregate. changes ASR gel development from a few large pockets of viscous gel to many more small pockets of fluid gel. A glass gradation between 75 pm and ~ 1 . and high friability. in terms of strength and ASR mitigation. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPLICAT~ON Waste glass aggregate can be used successfully in place of natural fine aggregate at replacement levels up to 50% of the fine aggregate fraction. This. a proportion of glass aggregate slightly less than the pessimum proportion seems optimal.It appears that fly ash mitigates ASR primarily by acting as a very fine and reactive material itself which consumes alkalis in the production of an ASR-like alkali-CSH gel. due to its extremely poor shape.5 mm produces poor strength when used as aggregate. For mixes which are problematic but are already beyond the pessimum proportion. the initial strength gain is less than that of the control specimens (an optimal mix with glass aggregate starts with only 75% of the strength of the control mix at 7 days age). poor surface characteristics. At 28 days the strength rises to ~ 8 5 % of the strength of the control. rnm 5 was found to produce strengths sirmlar to control concrete at comparable W/(C +fi ratios. to ~ 9 5 % at 180 days. However.
were found to be only partially effective. The fly ash used should be selected to have a high pozzolanic and low CaO content (generally Class F) and the lowest alkali level possible. however. It will generally be necessary to use water reducers with glass aggregate to reduce the water demand for workability.which fly ash can effectively mitigate ASR. however. Glass aggregate is likely to demand greater quantities of water reducer. free of food or chemical contaminants. an ash with an alkali content near 5% should definitely be evaluated in test trials before use. the following characteristics will be required: the particle shape must approach that of regular. Low-alkali cement and air-entrainment should still be used whenever possible in the design of a m i x with glass aggregate. The glass must be well graded. The free carbon content should also be kept as low as possible to minimize interaction with water reducers and air-entraining admixtures. especially sugars. sub-angular sand. The glass must be clean. rather than flakes or plates. Use of fly ash was the only procedure found to be consistently effective in mitigation of ASR. Care must be taken that the quantity of water reducer is tailored to the glass aggregate mix. Special care is required in the crushing of glass aggregate to satisfy this. In addition. Fly ash should be used in proportions of =lo% to 20% of the total cementitious material. which will require some care in the crushing and washing operations. Other procedures. because they reduce the degree to which fly ash must act to mitigate ASR and thereby allow fly ash to develop a greater portion of its potential strength. in particular judicious aggregate proportioning. while at the same time overuse might aggravate glass' slight tendency toward bleeding and segregation. . A 5% available alkali content is a reasonable limit. use of low-alkali cement and use of air-entrainment.
visual inspection and other testing of the sections themselves similar to the performance outlined above for the laboratory series.Both strength and freeze-thaw durability of glass aggregate concrete are comparable to control concrete and well within the acceptable range for use in pavement. at an age of =18 months. The Field Trial test sections. show performance of parallel laboratory cylinders. strength cores. . These or similar mixes should perform well in further pavement applications. Both the 20%/20% OOIFG m i x and the very similar OOFI mix showed excellent strength and durability.
" ACI Materials Journal. and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete C 143-90a. American Society for Testing and Materials (1994). C3 1-91. C494-90. Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Field C39-86. 04. Standard Test Method for Total Moisture Content of Aggregate by Drying C617-87. Standard Practice for Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens . 158-166. Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete C192-90a. Longitudinal and Torsional Frequencies of Concrete Specimens C227-90. Standard Specification for Apparatus for Use in Measurement of Length Change of Hardened Cement Paste. Standard Test Method for Unit Weight. Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory C215-85. Philadelphia. Mortar and Concrete . Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method C260-86. Vol. 84(2).02. Standard Test Method for Fundamental Transverse. Yield. Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete C496-90.ACI Committee 226 (1987). Standard Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregate C138-92. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens C42-90. Section 4: Construction. Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate C128-93. Standard Test Method for Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete C127-88. Standard Test Method for Potential Reactivity of Aggregates (Chemical Method) C490-93a. Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens (2566-89. Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Cement Aggregate Combinations (Mortar-Bar Method) C231-91b. Standard Specification for Air-Entraining Admixtures for Concrete C289-87. Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate C136-92. 1994 Annual Book of ASTM Standards. "Silica Fume in Concrete.
." Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Fly Ash. C. Duchesne." Magazine of Concrete Research. 04. A.. and Chouinard. S. 'Why the Accelerated Mortar Bar Bethod ASTM C1260 is Reliable for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Supplementary Cementing Materials in Suppressing Expansion Due to Alkali-Silica Reactivity. American Society for Testing and Materials (1993). Mikulic. C. (1990). C666-92." Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Fly Ash. . Cabrera. Standard Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing C805-85. 115-144. 31(107). Standard Practice for Mechanical Mixing of Hydraulic Cement Pastes and Mortars of Plastic Consistency Babu. D. Standard Specification for Fly Ash and Raw or Calcinated Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Portland Cement Concrete. Slag. Carles-Gibergues. P. "Early Strength Behaviour of Fly Ash Concretes... Bungey.01. Hopkins. S. 1993 Annual Book of ASTM Standards. 24(2). J.. J. P. A. 91-98. "Evaluation of the Properties of British Pulverized Fuel Ashes and Their Influence on the Strength of Concrete. "Determining Concrete Strength by Using Small-Diameter Cores. (1986). (1987). C305-91. 26-34. Philadelphia. V... Section 4: Construction. 'Theoretical Aspect and Methods of Testing Concrete Resistance to Freezing and Deicing Chemicals. G. (1995b). M. (1994). Silica Fume. R. R. Vol. '~uchesne. and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete.. Silica Fume. Woolley. E. A. Milwaukee. D. and Ukraincik. "Studies of Alkali-Silica Reaction. (1979). Madrid. BkruM. Shaw.. 1. 20(2). Concrete and Aggregates. J. and Fox. G. 17(1). H. Slag andNatura1 Pouolans in Concrete. 1. Bjegovic." Cement.947-972. 1. J. K. and Naproux. "Phase Equilibria and Cement Hydration. G. (1989). N. J. BtruM. 285-290. (1995a). American Ceramic Society.." Cement and Concrete Research. Plowman. Standard Test Method for Potentla1 Alkali Reactivity of Aggregates (Mortar-Bar Method). and Christensen.." Cement and Concrete Research.C618-93. 177-192. and Rao. Part 7: Modelling of Expansion. W." Material Science of Concrete I. M. Standard Test Method for Rebound Number of Hardened Concrete C1260-94. 73-93. Lee. Brown. G. "Influence of Particle Size Distribution on the Effectiveness of Type-F Fly Ash in Suppressing Expansion Due to Alkali-Silica Reactivity. P. Chatterji. H. 277-284." Proceedings of the Katherine and Bryant Mather International Conference on Concrete Durability. D. J.
" a Proposal for Research Work. de la Cruz. "Studies of Alkali-Silica Reaction. 24(1). 73-82. Cape Town. M. and Cramer. (1991). Duchesne. 221-230. D. A. and Cramer. M. College of Engineering. Bijen. 17(1). Wisconsin Department o f Transportation. Lawrence Lowlands (Quebec. A. (1991a). M. 91(3). College of Engineering." Cement and Concrete Research. 'The Effectiveness of Supplementary Cementing Materials in Suppressing Expansion Due to ASR: Another Look at the Reaction Mechanism.107.Chatterji. 89-299. and BCruM. IL. M. N. M. S. 235-246." Lombard. Duchesne. Part 2: Pore Solution Chemistry.. 'Wisconsin Power & Light Co. S. Arnes. "Application of the NBRI Accelerated Mortar Bar Test to Siliceous Carbonate Aggregates Produced in the St. J. 19(2). (1994b). Iowa Department of Transportation. and Habita. 853-862. . Diamond. National Building Research Institute. A. M. W. (1989).. A." a Proposal for Research Work." Cement and Concrete Research.'The Effectiveness of Supplementary Cementing Materials in Suppressing Expansion Due to ASR: Another Look at the Reaction Mechanism. (1994). 24(3)." College of Engineering. Letter to Jim Perry. and de Haan." Cement and Concrete Research. S. 177-183. F. 24(2)." Cement and Concrete Research. Part 1: Influence of Various Parameters on the Test Results. R. R." Cement and Concrete Research. B. M." Cement and Concrete Research. Class F Fly Ash Analysis Report. (1994). and BCruM. J. (1989). Duchesne. Figg. and de la Cruz. de la Cruz. "Reaction of Fly Ash in Concrete. (1989). L. (1975). Y. "Available Alkalies fkom Supplementary Cementing Materials.. (1987). University of Wisconsin-Madison. University of Wisconsin-Madison. 21(5). W. and Jensen. R. Fournier. L. University of Wisconsin-Madison. and B6ruM. J. Part 5: Verification of a Newly Proposed Reaction Mechanism" Cement and Concrete Research. Iowa. G. (1981). V. A. and BCruM. A. J. Cramer. "Interim Report and Synopsis on Glass in Concrete Sidewalk Demonstration Project. Dubberke. M. Fraay. "A Review of Alkali-Silica Reaction and Expansion Mechanism: Alkalis in Cement and Concrete Pore Solutions. Taulow. E. (1992). Curtil.." Cement and Concrete Research. (1994~). M. A. V. 'Waste Glass as an Aggregate for Concrete. S. M. Rock River Generating Station. Canada). J. Commercial Testing & Engineering Co." Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete." ACZ Materials Journal. 473-478. (1994). "Reaction Between Cement and Artificial Glass in Concrete. 329-346. 97. A Critical Examination. R. Part 1: Concrete Expansion and Portlandite Depletion. and Oberholster. "Use of the NBRI Accelerated Test to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Mineral Admixtures in Preventing the Alkali-Silica Reaction. 19(2). 5. V. Davies. "Study of the Alkah-Aggregate Reaction on Concrete Prisms.. "Waste Glass as an Aggregate for Concrete-Phase11. (1994a). S.
"Characteristics of Silica Fume Concrete. Johnston. A. D. Southfield. and Beddoes. Hudec. "Laboratory Report. N. Gillott." ACI Materials Journal. Y. J. (1988). 40-44." Magazine of Concrete Research. "Alkali-Silica Reactivity: An Overview of a Concrete Durability Problem". 23(4).. Holnam (1993). Iowa. and Banahene. W. "New Interpretation of Alkali-Silica Reaction and Expansion Mechanisms in Concrete. "Cement Mill Test Report. S. "Chemical Treatments and Additives for Controlling Alkali Reactivity. S.21-26. (1993). M. E. P. 344-350.. 15.." Cement and Concrete Research. and Wang. Michigan. "Waste Glass as Coarse Aggregate for Concrete. Gopalan. (1986a). M. S. Hobbs. K (1993). Mason City. Goldman. Slag. M. and Abou-Zeid. University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'Nucleation and Pozzolanic Factors in Strength Development of Class F Fly Ash Concrete. T. Alkli-Silica Reaction in Concrete.Gaudette. J. T. P. Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures. National Building Research Institute. Jones. 6(3). Hozumi. K. 10(4). 2 15-223." Chemistry and Industry. C. (1981). A. Hobbs. W. 38(137). 2(5). N. Thomas Telford. and Takernoto." Mason City Plant. 13th Edition. (1974). Silica Fume. "Deleterious Expansion of Concrete Due to Alkali-Silica Reaction: Lnnuence of PFA and Slag. Kosrnatka." Proceedings of the Conference on Alkli-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete. (1994). (1988). Portland Cement Association. "Correlation between Pore Solution Composition and Alkali-Silica Expansion of Mortars Containing Various Fly Ashes and Blast Furnace Slags." Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Fly Ash. and Natural Pouolans in Concrete. (1993). 90(2). S. K." Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. Kawamura. 23(4). "Pilot Study on the Effects of Waste Glass Aggregate on Portland Cement Concrete. 'The Influence of Microfillers on Enhancement of Concrete Strength. P. N. D. W. 962-972." Cement and Concrete Research. (1989). . S. (1988). "Continuing Studies of Alkali-Aggregate Reactions in Concrete. J. 973-980. E. (2). H. Norway. "Study on the Effect of the Quality of Fly Ash for Controlling Alkali-Aggregate Reactions. Cape Town. D. (1991)." Cement and Concrete Composites. R. Khedr. Lane. (1993)." Journal of Testing and Evaluution. and Bentur. C. and Panarese. A." An Independent Study Report prepared in partial fulfillment of the Master of Science Degree. Trondheim. Nakano. H. London. Lafarge Corporation (1991). Kobayashi. 191-205. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. D. 403-4 15. 357-375. 117-121. T. and Yanagida." International Journal of Composites and Lightweight Concrete." Alpena Plant. Gillott. "Improved Control of Alkali-Silica Reaction by Combined Use of Admixtures. (1988). (1993).
R. "Reduction in Mortar and Concrete Expansion with Reactive Aggregates Due to Alkali Leaching. C. Neville. Hornain." Cement. Silica Fume. Schmidt. L. A.. H. J. K W.249-255. "A Preliminary Study of Fy Ash Granulometric Influence on Mortar Strength. and Natural Pouolans in Concrete. 42-49. Mehta. Pitrnan. and Natural Pouolans in Concrete. V. Shayan. Milwaukee. and Hooton. W. Monz6. Trondheim. Cape Town. Cape Town. P.. and Borrachero." Proceedigs o f the Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete. Marshfield. 'The Alkali-Aggregate Reaction . Silica Fume. Lan. 24(4)." Material Science o f Concrete I. 13(1). (1991). 197-222. K. H. 1-43." Proceedings o f the Fifth International Conference on Fly Ash. and OH Ions in Pore Structure Caused by Acidic Action of Mineral Admixture Particles in Matrix. Guo. Ludwig. "It's Time for a Change fkom 6 x 12. C. 24(7). (1994). M. P. . D. and Peris-Mora. X. 1. "Microsilica in Concrete. Scrivener. K. Norway..." Cement and Concrete Research. M. Monz6.Concrete Microstructural Evolution. Cylinders.in. "Pozzolanic and Cementitious By-Products in Concrete-Another Look. (1992). R.." ACI Materials Journal.. J. (1981). M. Slag. Peris-Mora.339-353." Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete. 1235-1236." ACI Materials Journal. Properties o f Concrete. (1989). Slag. 127-161." Proceedings o f the Third International Conference on Fly Ash. I." Material Science o American Ceramic Society. Pay& J. "Influence of the Amount of Mixing Water on the Alkali-Silica Reaction. M. (1989). Qian. and Saia. (1995). 79 1-796.. A. Cape Town. A. "Mechanism of Mineral Admixture Suppressing Alkali-Silica Reaction. f Concrete I. 'The Microstructure of Concrete. American Ceramic Society. " M e c h c a l Treatment of Fly Ashes: Strength Development and Workability of Mortars Containing Ground Fly Ashes. National Building Research Institute. National Building Research Institute. (1963). Pay$ J. Nasser. 3rd Ed. 1327-1334. (1987)." Proceedings o f the Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete. "Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Tests on Glass Used for Exposed Aggregate Wall Panel Work. (1994). 'The 'Pessimum' Effect in an Accelerated Mortar Bar Test Using 1M NaOH Solution at 80°C. Part 11: Retardation of the Transport of Na. and Al-Maneseer. (1981).to 3 x 6. MA. A." Cement and Concrete Composites. (1989). 60. (1981).Lenzner. H. 14. Rogers. and Poitevin. 84(3)." Cement and Concrete Research. Concrete and Aggregates. 2 13-216. F... D. U. 'Theoretical and Practical Research on the Alkali-Silica Reaction. K L. A. Regourd. E. E. and Tang. Roberts. (1981). A.
97(4)(d)and 159. . Department of Commerce. S. pp. U. "Statistical Abstract of the United States. (1992). 159." Durability o Building Materials. "Results of Analysis of Columbia Generating Station Fly Ash Units I & 2.. 227. "1989 Senate Bill 30W. 1989 Wisconsin Act 335.." Madison. (1993). B. f Tang. P. M. Recovery." Rock River-Blackhawk Generating Station. D. 4(4). Z. S. Washington. 1 13th Edition Table 372. 227. Beloit." Madison. Warzyn Laboratory (199la). "Fly Ash Analysis. Strategic Highway Research Program. "Alkali Reactivity of Glass Aggregate. and Statistical Administration. Eliminating or Minimizing Alkali-Silica Reactivity. and Disposal: 1969 to 1990. 377-385. and Han. Wisconsin Power and Light Company (1994). Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction. Sections: 159. Bureau of the Census (1993). Wisconsin Electric Power Company (1993). (1987)." The National Data Book. Warzyn Laboratory (199 lb). 1993. D. 'Fly Ash Analysis.07(3)(d).128 Stark. Sheboygan. WI. 34. WI.07(7)(a). ''Expansion of Glass-Containing Concrete and an Introduction to the Alkali-Silica Reaction." An Independent Study Report prepared in partial fklfilknent of the Master of Science Degree. Economics. WI.. Table 373. p. pp. and Okarnoto. State of Wisconsin (1989). University of Wisconsin-Madison. Xu. Minicipal Solid Waste Generation. Virnawala. P. Morgan. Department of Civil Engineering. "Results of Analysis of Rock River Generating Station Cyclone Fly Ash Units 1 & 2. WI." Edgewater Units 3 & 4. Generation and Recovery of Selected Materials in Municipal Solid Waste: 1960 to 1990. Department of Transportation.
(1991) Warzyn (1991a) .15 2.TABLE A3.43 1 Holnam Cement Corp.6 4.7 2. Class c3 Fly Ash LOW-~lkali' ~od-Mkali2 Cement Cement 9 6 by Weight SiOz N203 20. (1993) LaFarge Corp.1.10 0.50 3.Na20 Specific Gravity -- 0.2 0. as.7 62.7 2.1. CEMENT AND POWDERED GLASS CHARACTERISTICS.90 -- Fe203 so3 CaO MgO Moisture Content Loss on Ignition Na2O K20 Total Alk.8 2.15 3.
33 0.36 2.10 15.43 1.05 -= 15 = 0.33 2.15 ACI Committee 226 (1987a) Typical composition of container glass from Figg (198 1) W & L (1991) 'W & L (1994) WEPCO (1994) .20 4.44 31.02 39.28 0.4 -- 0.7 = 1.30 0.4 = 16 = 2.05 0.10 3.35 2.64 0.6 = 0.37 1.32 2.79 2.37 0.19 5.48 1.36 3.42 Fez03 CaO so3 p205 Moisture Content Loss on Ignition Na20 K20 Total Alkalis as Na20 Specific Gravity -= 0.Class F~ Class F' class F~ ~ ~ ~ i c powdered5 a l ~ Silica Fume Glass Fly Ash F1 Fly Ash F2 Fly Ash F3 Chmid Compmitiaa % h_u W e a t SiO2 = 92 = 67 37.18 1.15 2.0 = 1.72 0.
01 Particle Size (mm) FIGURE A3.1.0. . FLYASHES.001 0.1. GRADATIONS OF CEMENTS. POWDERED GLASS AND SILICA FUME.
VARIABLE PARAMETERS OF THE GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES.APPENDIX 3. - Batch(s) Fine Glass Type I % of Total Aggr Coarse Glass Type I % of Total Aggr Fly Ash Type I % of Total (C Cement Type WR Type Air Entmd.2 VAFUABLE PARAMETERS OF THE CONCRETE MIXES TABLE A3. +J) None None FBI 10% FA/10% FA/10% None None None None FA/4% FA/4% FA/8% FA/4% None CA/48% None CBl38% CA/38% CA/38% None None None None CA/8% CN8% CA/16% CA/8% None F 1120% None F1120% F 1120% Cl20% F 1120% F1125% F 1130% F1/35% None F 1120% None F1125% None Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod None None None None None None None None None None None None None None .1.2.
92. 100.2.99. 96.97 98.89 90. 87.95. 88. VARIABLE PARAMETERS OF THE GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES (CONTINUED) Batch(s) Fine Glass Type 1 % of Total Aggr Coarse Glass Type I % of Total Aggr Fly Ash Type I % of Total (C Cement Type Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod WR Type None None None None None None None None None None None None None None Air Entmd. 91.101 FA/13% FA/13% FA/10% FA/lO% CA/23% CA/23% CC/38% CC/38% F1/30% F1/35% F 1120% F1/25% No No No No . +f) F1/30% None None F1/35% F1/20% F1/25% F 1120% F1/30% F1/35% F1/25% 86.TABLE A3.93 94.1.
147. 141. 135. 138. 150. 129 130. 144. 117 118. 131. 148 149. 125 126.TABLE A3. 139 140. 116.(CONTINUED) Batch(s) Fine Glass Type / % of Total Aggr FA/10% FA/10% FA/lO% FA/18% FA/18% FA/18% FA/18% FA/18% FC/8% None Coarse Glass Type / % of Total Aggr CC/38% CC/38% CC/38% CC/72% CC/72% CC/72% CC/72% CD/72% CE/16% None Fly Ash Type / % of Total (C +f) F1/30% None F1/35% None F1/20% F1/25% F1/30% F1/35% C/25% None Cement Type Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod WR Type None None None None None None None None None None Air Entrnd. 142 143. 107. 136 137. 108. 111. 103.1.2. 151 None FC/4% FC/8% FC/8% None CE/8% CE/16% CE/ 16% None F 1120% F1/25% F1/30% Low Low Low Low None None None None Yes Yes Yes Yes .121 122. 133 134. 119. 128. 109 110. 112. 132.105 106. 124. 120. 115. VARIABLE PARAMETERS OF THE GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES. 123. 127. 104. No No No No No No No No No No 102. 145 146. 113 114.
(CONTINUED) Batch(s) Fine Glass Type/ % of Total Aggr Coarse Glass Type/ % of Total Aggr Fly Ash Type / % of Total (C .1.2. VARAIBLE PARAMETERS OF THE GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES. Cement Type Low Low Low WR Type None None High High High High High None High Med High High Air Entrnd. +fi Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes None None FF/24% ~~124% None FG/20% None None None None None None None None None Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low .TABLE A3.
2. None FI/20% FI/lO% FI/20% FI/20% None Fly Ash Type 1 % of Total AggrNone F3/20% F3/15% F2/25% F2/20% F2/20% WR Type None High High High High High 1 2 3 4 5 6 TABLE A3. VARIABLE PARAMEERS OF THE FIELDTRIAL.2. Section Fine Glass Type / % of Total Aggr.3. Batch Fine Glass Type Powdered Glass / % of Total % of Cement AggrW20% None None FI/20% W20% FI/20% FI/20% FI/20% None None None 1% 2.5% 5% 10% 20% .TABLE A3.2. VARIABLE PARAMETERS OF THE POWDERED GLASS SERIES.
Mix No(s) Glass Type / % of Total Aggr None Fly Ash Type 1 % of Total ( c +f) None None None Powdered Glass % of Cement None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None w/(c +f) FJ/100% None None F2/20% F2/20% F2/15% F2/25% None FJ/20% FJ/10% FJ/20% FJ/100% None F3/20% F3/20% F3/25% None None None None None None None None FJ/20% FJ/20% FJ/50% None FJ/5% FJ/10% FJ/20% FJ/40% FJl7O% FJ/100% .1. VARAIBLE PARAMETERS OF THE ACCELERATED ASR EXPANSION SERIES.3.VARIABLE PARAMETERS OF THE ACCELERATED ASR EXPANSION MORTAR MIXES TABLE A3.
43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.5% 5% 10% 20% 1% 2.3.43 0.1.43 0.5% 5% 10% 20% wl(c +f) 0.43 0.43 0. VARAIBLE PARAMETERS OF THE ACCELERATED ASR EXPANSION SERIES.TABLE A3.43 .43 0. (CONTINUED) Mix No(s) 801 802 803 804 805 806 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 Glass Type / % of Total Aggr FJ/40% FJ/40% FJ/40% FJ/40% FJ/40% FJ/40% FJ/20% FJ/20% FJ/20% FJ/20% FJ/20% Fly Ash Type / % of Total (c +f) None None None None None None None None None None None Powdered Glass % of Cement None 1% 2.
1 MIX AND FRESH CONCRETE RESULTS TABLE 4. Air Content ( m ~ m ~ / l~% ir) AE Admx. Batch(s) WI(C +f) (mm) Slump (kg/m3) Unit Wt.APPENDIX4.1. .1. GLASS-FLY ASH SERIES MIX AND FRESHCONCRETE RESULTS.
.1.TABLE A4. ~ (co-1 WI(C +fi Batch(s) (mm> Slump (kg/m3> Unit Wt.~'ASHSERIES MIX AND FRESH C O N CRESULTS. Air Content (mvrn3/l% ~ir) AE Admx. GLAss-FL.1.
TABLE A4. ( c o r n ) WI(C +fi (mm> Slump (kg/m3> Unit Wt. Air Content (m~m~/l '0) % AE Admx. .1.1. Batch(s) GLASS-FLY ASH SERIES MIX AND FFESH CONCRE~E RESULTS.
3. Air Content (mum3/l% ~ i r ) AE Admx. 48 GLASS SERIES MIX AND FRESH CONCREIE RESULTS.1.TABLE A4. Section 1 wl(c +J) 0. FIELDRUAL MIX AND FRESH CONCRETE RESULTS.1.0% (mum3/l% ~ i r > AE A h .49 (mm> Slump 90 (kg/m3) Unit Wt. 2294 Air Content 7. . A4. POWDERED Batch(s) WI(C +J) (m) Slump (kg/m3) Unit Wt.2.
A4.A U compressive strength results are adjusted to a nominal entrained air content of 6. GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH RESULTS. Tabulated values are averages of several specimens. TABLE Batch No(s). Strength (MPa) at Age (days): 7 28 90 180 365 .1.0%.2.
Batch No(s). Strength (MPa) at Age (days): 7 28 90 180 365 .
2. Strength (MPa) at Age (days): .1.TABLE A4. GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH RESULTS. (CONTINUED) Batch No(s).
0%.0%. Section Strength (MPa) at Age (days): 7 28 120 365 .A l l compressive strength results are adjusted to a nominal entrained air content of 6. Tabulated values are averages of several specimens. Tabulated values are averages of several specimens. Section Strength (MPa) at Age (days): 7 28 90 180 365 A l l compressive strength results are adjusted to a nominal entrained a i r content of 6.
0%.A l l compressive strength results are adjusted to a nominal entrained air content of 6. Batch(s) Strength (MPa) at Age (days): 7 14 28 56 90 . Tabulated values are averages of several specimens.
Section Strength (MPa) at Age (days): 28 120 365 Mix No. Strength (MPa) at Age (days): 7 14 28 56 90 .
Prism Expansion (x0. GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES CONCRETE PRISM ASR EXPANSION RESULTS.1.00 1%) at Age (days): 7 28 112 365 730 1095 0 NIA NIA NIA 4 I1 4 4 3 3 2 0 3 5 4 5 6 8 0 NIA NIA NIA 1 0 NIA NIA NIA 0 6 9 7 5 18 8 24 11 12 10 40 32 0 NIA NIA NIA 0 3 13 8 6 21 10 58 16 17 13 118 110 18 0 NIA NIA NIA 0 0 16 9 6 25 11 106 18 20 15 305 265 21 0 NIA 8 6 6 4 10 5 0 5 6 6 22 9 11 14 .4 CONCRETE PRISM ASR EXPANSION RESULTS TABLE A4. Batch No(s).4.APPENDE4.
4.1. (CONTINUED) Batch No(s). GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES CONCRETE PRISM ASR EXPANSION RESLTLTS . 0 0 1 % at ) Age (days): 7 28 112 365 730 1095 . Prism Expansion ( ~ 0 .TABLE A4.
1. Prism Expansion (x0.TABLE A4. (CONTINUED) EXPANSION Batch No(s).001 %) at Age (days): 7 28 112 365 730 1095 . GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES CONCRETE PRISM ASR RESULTS.4.
001%) at Age (days): 7 14 28 56 112 224 365 .4. Section Prism Expansion (~0.TABLE A4.2. FIELD TRIAL CONCRETE PRISM ASR EXPANSION RESULTS.
TABLE A4.5.1. STIFFNESSR E T BY ~ GLASS-FLY &H SERIES DURING Ffl TESTING. Batch(s) (GPa) Initial D YE~ S t f i e s s Retained (%) at Age (cycles):
TABLE A4.5.2. WHGH~ REZNNEDBY GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES DURING Fm TESTING. Batch(s) (kg) Initial Weight Weight Retained (%) at Age (cycles):
TABLE A4.5.3. STIFFNESS RETAINED BY FIELD TRIAL DURING F/T TESTING. Section (MPa) Initial D YE ~ Stfiess Retained (%) at Age (cycles):
TABLE A4.5.4. WEIGHT RETAINED BY FIELDTRIAL DURING F/T TESTING. Section (kg) Initial Weight Weight Retained (%) at Age (cycles):
5.5. STIFFNESS RETAINED BY POWDERED GLASS SERTES DURING Fm TESTING.TABLE A4. Batch (hPa) Initial D YE~ Stfiess Retained (%) at Age (cycles): Batch (kg) Initial Weight Weight Retained (%) at Age (cycles): .
ACCEEMT'F. Batch Expansion (~0.6.APPENDIX 4.1.D ASR EXPANSION RESULTS.6 ACCELERATED ASR EXPANSION RESULTS TABLE A4.001%) at Age (days): 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 14 .
6.TABLE A4.001 %) at Age (days): 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 14 .1. ACCELE.RA'IED ASR EXPANSION RESULTS. (CONTINUED) Batch Expansion (x0.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.