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.
Some study of the interactions between the experimental materials and air-entraining admixtures. water-reducing admixtures.Waste glass has been heavily targeted for recycling efforts by various municipalities. Evaluation of the experimental mixes included consideration of compressive strength. 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. a laboratory test of the possible use of finely ground glass as a cement supplement. It w& determined that the effects of glass aggregate on strength may be divided into three separate effects: (1) water demand of glass aggregate. and to determine the effects of waste glass aggregate and powdered waste glass on the strength and durability of concrete. a field trial to study several of the most promising mixes under field conditions. and alternative methods must be found for utilization of this waste glass. however. 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. An experimental research program was conducted to identlfy characteristics of waste glass that produce satisfactory concrete for pavement applications. fr-eezdthaw resistance. . and a series of accelerated ASR expansion mortar bar tests. one possible use for this glass is as aggregate in portland cement concrete. 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. (2) interaction with strength developmnt by fly ash. results of others at the University of Wisconsin. Not a l l waste glass can be recycled into new glass. 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. The performance of waste glass/fly ash concrete was evaluated.
Freeze-thaw durability was found to be promising. mitigation can be provided by judicious use of fly ash. .bond. dependmg on the form and gradation of the glass and the type of cemnt used.5%) gain in strength as compared to the control.and (3) intrinsic effects of glass aggregate. ASR is demonstrated. The combined effect may range between an 80% loss in strength and a slight (=I% . including particle strength and paste-aggregate.
COMP~SITION AND M.~CROSTRU(-TURE .CONCREIE BEHAVIOR HYDRATION .
METHODS AND MATERIALS MATERIALS AGGREGATES ADMUC~URE~ C E M E N T S .DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH -LowALKALI MIXES .MODERATE-ALKALI MIXES RELATIONTO GLASS CONTENTAND FORM .0n-m OBSERVA~NS .RELATION TO FLY ASH CONTENT AND 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 .STRENGTH OVERVIEW -MODERATEALKALIMIXES.DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH .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 .
EFFEC~SOFFLY ASH .ANALYSIS OF DATA AND DISCUSSION EFFECTS OF GLASS AGGREGATE STRENGTH .SUMMARY.EFSXTSOF GLASSAGGREGATE GRADATION .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 .USEOF MINERAL ADMIXTUFWIN W m GLASS AGGREGATE CON^ .ASR R E A ~ Y GLASS .TE~~IMUMBEHAVIOR .CHAPTER 5 .EFFECTSOF PARTICLE SHAPE AND TJXWRE .DURABILITY .ASR TBTPROCEDURES .USEOF WASTE G~ASSAGGREGATE . CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS M)R APPLICATION CONCLUSIONS STRENGTH .~ S O F F L Y A S H E m a s OF POWDERED .AREASREQUIRINGFURTHERRESEARCH CHAPTER 6 .EFFECrs OF FLY ASH ON ASR M~GATION - RECOMMENDA~ONS OPTIMAL PROPORTIONS OF WASTE GLASSAGGREGATE AND FLY ASH .CAUSES OF STRENGTH REDUCTION AND VARIATION .BEHAVIOR DURING PROCESSING AND IN F R E S H CON^ AND WATER DEMAND.
3 APPENDIX 4.1 VARIABLE PARAMEIERS OF THE A C C E L E RASR A~ EXPANSION MORTAR MIXES COMPRES~IVE sm APPENDIX4.3 APPENDIX 4.1 APPENDIX 3.6 ACC-W ASR EXPANSION RESULTS .5 m RESULTS CONCREIE PRISM ASR EXPANSION RESULTS FREmEmAwRESULTS APPENDIX4.APPENDICES APPENDIX 3.2 APPENDIX 4.4 APPENDIX 4.
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.-S102 GRADATION OF NATURALGRAVELS A AND B. FB.D - 0. FINE GLASSES FA.CC. FC. FG.PHOTOMICROGRAPHOF GLASS A G G R E G A T E .180 DAYS D m ~ OF STRENGTH m -Low-ALKAU CEMENT -PINE GLASS GRADATIONS .w CEMENT- 28 DAYS SlRENGTH O V E R V I E W -MODERATE-ALKALI CECbENT . ACCELERATED GRADATION. COARSE GLASSES CA. FH. CD AND CE GRADATION OF N A T U R A L SANDS A AND B.180 DAYS S G T H O V E R V I E W -M O D E R A T E .90 DAYS STRENGTH OVERVIEW -LOW-ALKAU CEMENT. FD AND FE GRADATION OF NATURAL SANDS A AND B. FINE GLASSES FF.6 MM TRPAR'lTIE COMPOS~ON mMIS OF THESYSTEMSCAO-AL~O~-SIO~ AND CAO-NA20. CB.
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 .1095 DAYS .MODERATE-ALKALI CEMENTNo GLASS D~PMENTO SF m m .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 .
FLY ASHES. POWDERED GLASS RELITION OF S'IRENGT'H TO ASH CONTENT-MODFRATE ALKAI-J REQUIRED BY TYPE AND CONTENT OF MrxEs A I R .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.ACCELERATED ASR EXPANSION -GLASS WlTH N O W G A T I O N ACCELERATED ASR EXPANSION -FLY ASHES F2 AND F3. AND POWDERED GLASS .
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 . 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 .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.
6.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 .5 A4.6 A4.4 A188.8.131.52.
Gradation #2 Ground in Laboratory fiom Glass FC Unwashed form of Glass FG Washed. standardized o n in Accelerated ASR Series of Fine Glass for use CB cc CD CE FA FB FC .Cement Chemists' Notation -used throughout thesis C CaO (calcium oxide. Blend of Glasses CC and CE Washed. Third Shipmnt of Coarse Glass Washed. First Shipment of P8 Fine Glass Washed. hydrate) SO3 (sulfur trioxide. First Shipment of Fine Glass Unwashed form of Glass FA Washed. alumina) F F%03 (femc oxide) H20 (water. First Shipment of Coarse Glass Unwashed form of Glass CA Washed. lime) Si02 (silicon dioxide. Second Shlpmnt of Fine Glass Washed. carbonate) Glass Asmegate Stocks CA Washed. Gradation #1 Ground in Laboratory fiom Glass FC Washed. Glass FG with P50 fiaction discarded Washed. sulfate) C02 (carbon dioxide. Second Shlpment of Coarse Glass Washed. limited. Second Shlpment of P8 Fine Glass Washed. silica) A1203 (aluminum oxide.
R20 CSH .g.20%/25% the combition of coarse and fine glass aggregate used in a particular mix.g. C A K indcates that Glass CA was used to replace a portion of the coarse aggregate. e..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. while Glass FG was used to replace a portion of the fine %gregate. C:S is equal to the coefficient x in the stoichiomtric expression Na20e R. while 25% of the total cemntitious materials is £lyash xO/o/y%.g.658[K20] generic notation for an alkali mtal or alkali oxide. OOEG indicates that no coarse glass was used. shorthand for CSmH gel the quantities of glass aggregate and fly ash used in a particular mix. generally either Na or K (or Na20 or K20) the ratio CaO:Si02in a particular C S n H gel i.. e-g.. R+. e.e. while Glass FC was used to replace a portion of the fine aggregate.. OOEb indicates that only fine aggregate was replaced with glass. 20%/25% indicates that 20% of the total aggregate is replaced by glass aggregate. .. e.
Johnston 1974. Waste glass has been heavily targeted for recycling efforts. Their findings may be summarized as follows: In many cases. or mixed color waste streams which are difficult to separate into useful raw glass stocks. the use of glass aggregate produces highly unsatisfactory concrete due to ASR and poor strength developmnt (Johnston 1974). Dept. for example. about 20%. though this depends on the type of glass . Schmidt and Saia 1963) .A problem receiving increasing attention in the United States is disposal of solid waste. the capacity for bulk use in the construction industry. was successfully recycled (U. of Commerce 1993). S. and among the most popular methods of dealing with this problem is recychg. recycling into construction materials is among the most attractive because of the large volu~ne of material involved. The amount of glass requiring disposal continues to grow. 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. prohibitive shipping costs to glass manufacturing plants. proposals within the Wisconsin state legislature would prohibit the disposal of glass containers in landfills and incinerators if enacted (1989 Wisconsin Act 335). amounting to 13. Not all waste glass can be recycled into new glass for several reasons. only 2.studying the mechanical properties of the resulting concrete and investigating the alkali-silica reaction (ASR). Several reasons for this include impurities which are chflicult to remove. Of the possible alternative uses for this glass. Of this amount. The use of glass as aggregate in portland cement concrete has been studied by a number of other researchers (Figg 198 1. Alternative methods must be found for utilization of this waste glass.2million tons in 1990.6 million tons.
03% at an age of one year under unaccelerated conditions might be a distinguishing value (Johnston 1974). and have substantial effects on their reactivities in concrete. and the chemical composition of the glass and fly ash. ASR involving glass aggregate is qualitatively different from ASR involving more porous natural aggregates. though a value of 0.aggregate used (Schmidt and Saia 1963). exhibiting a pessimum relationship for particle size (Figg 1981). glass aggregate may perform satisfactorily. The most reactive glasses have a high content of either boron or alkali oxides (Figg 198 1). but the critical value for a particular glass aggregate would have to be determined by test (Johnston 1974). 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 because waste glass was considered almost exclusively as coarse . Concrete with a mixture of frne and coarse crushed glass exhibits slightly smaller expansion than a concrete with only coarse crushed glass (Johnston 1974). The compositions of various types and colors of container glass vary greatly. The value of the existing documented research is limited because of sparse and generally negative results. cement content. Replacement of cement by 25% to 30% fly ash by weight appears to be an effective means of ensuring satisfactory performance. The amount of expansion associated with surface cracking varies considerably. Below a critical value of cement content and equivalent alkali content. Johnston suggests that the minimum amount of fly ash required for a given case might depend upon cement alkali equivalent. 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). with the concrete matrix only acting as a solution medium (Figg 1981).
Waste glass aggregate particles smaller than about 3 mm have a sub-angular shape and a smooth. .6. Actual municipal waste streams have been used throughout the research . f l a t surface texture. Smaller particles exhibit a more regular shape and reduced fiiability. as well as considerable £riability.5 r n r n ) and powdered (40ym) glass. Photographs of glass and sand particles of several sizes are shown in Figures 1. and use of the aggregate by construction personnel. washing and crushing. 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. and more important for practical use. particularly using frnely crushed (<I . possibly arising from macroscopic stresses and defects in the glass. The problems studied arise from the properties of waste glass as they differ from those of natural aggregates.1 .3 aggregate. Admixtures used in this study included high-range water reducer.1. The range of glass types studied was beyond those previously considered. The present research expanded on these past efforts with further consideration of material likely to be used in the practical application of waste glass. air-entraining admixture and three different sources of fly ash. either as manufactured or as crushed.addressing concerns of contamination. Particles larger than about 3 mrn exhibit a plate-like structure remaining from their original form as glass containers.
.photo file - - .photo - file .
.~oToMIcROGRAPH OF NATURAL SAND.PHOTOMICROGRAPHOF GLASS AGGREGATE.4.photo f i l e FIGURE 1. .6 M M photo f i l e FIGURE 1.6 MM - . D 0.3.- . D 0.
photo - file .photo file ..
The interlocking shear strength between the aggregate and the cement paste is expected to be less with glass than with natural aggregate. When waste glass is used as aggregate. Besides the possible Werences in physical structure caused by glass aggregate. Tang. including the speciiic surface. and which may be expected to take part in the alkali-silica reaction as described by Hobbs (1988). is expected to be the bond f o d between the aggregate and cement paste. which may cause deleterious expansions and strains in the concrete structure. In addition. the hbility of crushed glass particles may weaken the concrete structure. container glass may typically have a ratio of about 6 to 10 and is thus expected to be reactive. 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. if any. 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. (1987) dernonstrated that the reactivity is particularly dependent upon the chemical composition of the glass. which may interact with the hydration of cement paste. ASR must be evaluated and possibly mitigated. other. which is dependent upon the gradation of the particle distribution. The reactivity of amorphous glass has been demonstrated by researchers to depend upon the surface characteristics of the particles. et. Among the reactions of interest is the alkali-silica reaction (ASR). and therefore its strength and durability. al. The chemical bond. between the aggregate and the cement paste might be greater for glass aggregate due to its amorphous surface potentially allowing pomlanic behavior.Waste glass is an amorphous or cryptocrystalline silica mineral. becoming notable when the ratio ([SiQ]+[Naz0]):([CaO]+[A1203]) exceeds 1 and increasing sharply when it is greater than about 10 to 20. the principal difference in the structure of the resulting concrete. and possibly more sipficant changes are the differences in pore solution chemistry caused by glass aggregate. .
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.Other technical considerations also enter into an evaluation of the usability of glass aggregate. airentraining. It is hypothesized that waste glass aggregate. powdered waste glass. grading. 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 . Variations in glass waste streams might be sigdkant. or other products used to m o w the mix. Glass aggregate might affect the use and control of water during concrete mixing. or other admixtures will have to be included in such an analysis. Finally. w/(c +fi. and finishing behavior of the concrete. may be used as an adequate predictor of the strength and durability of concrete incorporating waste glass aggregate at wl(c +fi between 0. Also. the costs of glass aggregate concrete will eventuaJly require consideration. graded between RlOO and P8 and replacing up to 50% of the fine aggregate.50. the additional costs of grinding. the W/(C +fi usable in pavement and practically obtainable with the addition of high-range water reducer. While an obvious benefit would be the savings of glass disposal costs. forming. depending on the sensitivity of the resulting concrete to small changes in composition or characteristics of the glass aggregate. The ratio water:(cement + fly ash) by weight. and the costs of additional water reducer. along with the additional costs or savings which might come kom the use of fly ash. the aesthetics and public acceptance of the resulting concrete will require some consideration. though this is not within the scope of this research. and washing the glass. and depending on the amount of variation found to be in typical waste streams. to overcome any perception of glass aggregate as an inferior or unsafe material. thereby affecting the working.35 and 0.
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 . particularly at early to moderate ages (less than 180 days). however. The objectives of this research are: 1. it is expected that it wdl mitigate ASR in much the same way that fly ash might.a somewhat lower cement replacement level than that found necessary by other researchers including Johnston (1974). Further. Because of its amorphous silica composition. It is also clear that waste glass aggregate is highly alkali-ska reactive. The ASR deterioration may be effectively mitigated. fly ash. and is used as 20% or less of the total aggregate. in agreement with previous researchers' conclusions (Johnston 1974). by the appropriate use of mineral admixtures. powdered waste glass.more at later ages than similar concrete using only natural aggregate. Identify gradations and characteristics of crushed waste glass. fieezelthaw and ASR durability. when the waste glass is graded as expressed above and processed as detailed in this research. and chemical admixtures that produce concrete with adequate strength. . regardless of the form of the glass. 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. the proportion of glass to natural aggregate has only a secondary effect on the strength and freeze-thaw durability of the concrete. and usability in the laboratory and under field conditions for pavement applications.
freezeJthaw resistance. . mixing. and several water reducing and air-entraining admixtures are also included in these trials. This is undertaken to identify changes in the behavior of the concrete under field moisture. 2. exposure.). and use conditions. and determine m a n s of mitigating this ASR . Both coarse and fine waste glass gradations and several different glass preparation methods are included in the trials. Evaluating various combinations of glass aggregate and other constituents will include consideration of strength.10 . entrained air contents. D o c m n t the alkali-silica reactivity of waste glass aggregate. Determine the effects of waste glass aggregate and powdered waste glass on the strength and fieendthaw durability of concrete. limiting cemnt a l k a l ilevels.. curing. and resistance to ASR deterioration at ages from one month to three years as indicators of quality. control of mix water. 3.considering the addition of fly ash or powdered glass. air entrainment. Various water contents. 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. 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. and limiting water contents as possible m a n s . and to identify potential production problems (e. finishing.g. workability. etc. temperature.
because mitigation of ASR generally requires use of fly ash. 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. its susceptibility to fracture particularly observable in an examination of the fracture of concrete containing the more friable coarse glass particles.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 . These interactions will be studied in terms of their effects on water demand. To allow the application of glass in a wide range of pavement concretes. 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. though this is not likely a contributing cause of the observed differences.. which may contribute some strength. strength. and ASR in laboratory experimentation. . fly ashes and finely powdered waste glass is necessary. the possibility of a pozzolanic reaction between the cement paste and the glass aggregate.observable in the varying water content necessary to achieve constant workability with varying glass and fly ash proportions. The effects of fly ash on strength will be addressed. freeze-thaw durability. Finally. These would include differences between the natural aggregate-cement bond and the glass aggregate-cement bond.e. particularly at later ages. . From preliminary results this appears to account for a large portion of the observed differences in strength (Cramer and de la Cruz 1994). water-reducing admixtures. some understanding of interactions between waste glass and air-entraining admixtures. i. The strength of the glass aggregate or lack thereof. and changes in the cement paste caused by the presence of glass aggregate.
.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.
The strength and durability of concrete comes fiom the development of a matrix of hydrated cemnt which binds these mineral phases together. 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.HYDRATION Concrete is a composite of various mineral phases (aggregates. The total combined gradation of the coarse and tine aggregate. Two possible . w/c. fly ash. is at least as important as compressive strength in the performance of real concrete structures and pavements. etc. cement.the ratio waterxement by weight. because the water which remains fiee fiom the cemnt hydration occupies volume within the matrix and creates porosity. 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). Durability. Besides the wlc ratio. The properties of concrete depend both on the overall arrangement and structure of the mineral matrix. 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.) with sigmficant porosity and water either fdhg pores or bound into hydrated mineral phases. The paste-aggregate bond strength is in turn dependent upon the texture of the aggregate surface and also upon the porosity and wlc ratio. cement and other mineral admixtures ultimately determines the packing density of the total concrete mixture. The usual masure of concrete quality. the ability to maintain structure and strength over time. microsilica. The strength developed by a concrete matrix &pends upon the porosity of the concrete matrix and the strength of the paste-aggregate bond. and on the cementitious materials. is itself a major determining factor of the porosity.
represented by an arbitrary point S on the diagram. and while in solution CaO and SiO2 will hydrate to form calciumsilicate-hydrate gel (CSH) and calcium hydroxide (CH). 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. When a critical degree of supersaturation is reached.&O3. Freedthaw durability has been found to depend upon several key factors: entrained air.Si02 (C2S). a problem particular to silica aggregates which will be discussed in depth in the next section.k2o3 (C4AF). 2Ca0. the solution becomes supersaturated with CSH. 1987).1 (Brown 1989). 3Ca0. The effects of various materials on C:S may be illustrated with the solubility interaction dngrarn for Si02 and CaO shown in Figure 2. the composition of the pore fluid develops along the labeled d~ssolution line.0.AkO3 (C3A) and 4Ca0. The cement compounds are soluble in water. the composition of the pore solution may extend metastably along the line IL. preferentially at nucleation sites (Neville 1981).durability failure mechanisms that are most s i p k m t for pavement concrete with glass aggregate are ASR. COMPOS~ON AND MICROSTRUCTURE Cement is composed of 3CaO-Si02 (C3S). and the quality of the cement-aggregate bond (Bjegovic. et. The pore solution has thus been enriched with CaO. permeability. CSH will precipitate with a composition Q. and will therefore precipitate from the resulting supersaturated solution. The composition of solid CH is fixed while the composition of CSH may vary with C:S ratios typically ranging between 1. As C3S dissolves. but the C:S ratio may be substantially lower in the presence of reactive silica or fly ash. and dissolution will proceed along a line through P.4 and 2. as P lies to the right of the original dissolution line. Upon crossing line AI. Both CSH and CH are less soluble than their constituents. parallel to the original dissolution. but the . al. Until dynamic equiliium is reached. while the pore solution from which it precipitates will be left with a composition P. and freedthaw damage.
(BROWN 1989) The hydration of C2S proceeds similarly. The usual pattern is that I is approached h m the left. about 24 hours after mixing begins (Brown 1989). where CI. leaving s o m excess Ca(OH)2. and the composition hally settles again at point I. initially intersecting the line A1 to the left of B. while A represents the case where all available Ca(OH)? 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.SH and CH may precipitate stoichioxmtridly h m the pore solution. and its availabhty or reactivity or tim= will affect the composition of both the pore solution and the CSH geL . but to the right of A The effect of a pozzolan. may also be illustrated with the use of Figure 2. with a shghtly steeper dissolution line.1. that the presence of a pozzolan. the pore solution composition continues mtastably along IL. S O L U B IN'IERAc~oN ~ DIAGRAM FOR S I AND ~ CAO. w It is clear. contriiting reactive silica. thus. 0 " "20 J Mol % Ca o CaO FIGURE 2.1. approaching h m the right. T h e pore solution composition may settle into a dynamic equilibrium anywhere between A and I. with I being the case where all (currently) available SiQ is incorporated into CSH.
T h e pessimum content of an aggregate is that amount of aggregate (e. and moisture for the gel to imb1Ibe and expand (a requiremnt of at least 80% relative humidity has been established by Stark. ' High concentrations of OH. because Si02is relatively insoluble in neutral and acidic environments. rather than simply causing increased expansion with . soluble) silica. capable of imbibing moisture and thereby producing sufficient expansive pressure to cause substktial cracking and deterioration of concrete. while Ludwig (1981) suggests 85%).. The consistent mitigation of ASR continues to be hampred. et.g. expressed as kg of reactive aggregate per m3 of concrete) which causes the largest ASR expansion. however. ASR deterioration depends upon the presence of reactive (i. This mechanism of expansion has been verified by Gillott and Beddoes (1981) by analysis of changes in refractivity indices of opal undergoing reaction. 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. al. usually facilitated by a substantial concentration of alkalis. a high OHconcentration. One of the essential roles of the allcalis in ASR is thus to raise the pH of the pore solution. T s o m aggregates showing pessirnum behavior. (1993) and Hobbs(1988). because of the high solubility coefficients of NaOH and KOH.e. Researchers have observed that either h e reason for increasing or decreasing the aggregate content fiom the pessimum reduces ASR. but quite soluble in solutions with high OH' concentrations (Lane 1991).. 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.The alkali-silica reaction (ASR) is a reaction between silica (SO2) and hydroxide ions (OH] which forms an expansive alkali-silica hydrate gel.
i.e..increased aggregate content. et al. lithium has been shown by a number of researchers (Stark. Diamond 1975. Na. in fact. though there are several good theories as to why expansion may decrease beyond the pessirnum content of reactive aggregate given below. Alkalis are properly those elements occupying the first column of the periodic table: Li. It may be due to an optimum R20:Si02ratio at the pessirnum content. The alkalis of concern are sodium and potassium. offsetting the increased quantity of gel produced. et. This would suggest that increasing the silica content while keeping the akah content constant will result in progressively kss osmotic gels. then as the pessimum proportion is exceeded.to ASR may corm fiom a number of sources. etc. but rather only be used for establishing safe upper limits for use of an aggregate (below the pessirnum content). Other a l k a l i shave not been demonstrated to be problematic. al. The a bound into glassy mineral phases. less commonly fiom aggregates or the external l k a l i s in fly ash or aggregates are ini* environment. if alkah is necessary for the formation of a reactive gel. both because of their common o&urrence as constituents in cement and aggregates and because of their demonstrated role in ASR. among others) to have a mitigating rather than a contributing effect on ASR. most commonly the cement. (1995b) hkewise suggest that the accelerated test not be used for evaluation of the pessirnum proportion of a given aggregate. The osmotic potential may be higher for a gel with a high alkali content (Diamond 1975). . the alkali will become too dilute for much expansion to take place. K. In the accelerated test. 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). The alkalis which contribute. is not definitely known. the fly ash or other mineral admixture. B6rub6. 1993. the potential difference involved in the hydration of water into such a gel may be higher.
60% 0. et al. due to the relatively low specific surface area of normal coarse or f i n e aggregates and therefore low availability for dissolution. 1995b).339(Na20e of cement)/(w/c) + 0.50 has an alkali concentration = 0. on the other hand. For this reason. et al.0.7 rnmoledL and pH = 13. and a w/c ratio = 0. Thus. A normal cement paste made with a cement containing = 1% Na20.40% . on a bulk concrete basis (percent by weight of the concrete or mass of allcalk per m3 of concrete).658[K20]).90% 0. as most all of the cement dissolves in a concrete of usual wlc. 1993). the alkalis in cement will nearly all enter solution eventually. alkalis in whatever chemical combination they originate are usually quanti6ed by the equivalent normality of Na20 (equivalent Na2O = Na20.5. = ma201 + 0.022 molesiL) (Stark. may not enter solution.0. most alkahs are bound within the mineral phases.50% . It is only in the fine gradations of cement.7 (BkruM.4 are low-alkali cement moderate-alkali cement high-alkali cement fly ash 0.60% . In cement. or indirectly by the OH. In any case. 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).00%. Typical total alkali contents (Na20.which must dissolve for the alkalis to become available. or may do so only very slowly as the £lyash dissolves. significant contributions from aggregates are rare. and the mineral phases must dissolve for the a l k a l i s to enter solution.90% >0. Much .concentration (or pH) of the resulting alkali hydroxide solution (OH' concentration (normality) = 0. The alkalis present in fly ash. fly ash or similarly graded materials that sufficient dissolution occurs for sigmficant alkalis to be released.
this is also in agreement with Scrivener's model. The alkalis which do find their way into solution.64 mmolesL) will satisfy the accelerated mortar bar test method. Scrivener has found that the surface charge of CSH is positive for C:S above about 1. In light of these researchers' conclusions. many researchers have produced results which suggest that more alkalis are incorporated into the resulting pozzolanrc products than are released by fly ash dissolution. Hobbs' (1986a) suggestion that 17% of the total Na20. but not on the akah content of the fly ash. This may be an electrochemical effect of the low C:S gel produced in the pozzolanic reaction (Scrivener 1989). and thus never contniutes its alkalis to the pore solution. meanwhile. would thus be much more capable of entrapping alkalis electrochemically. BCruE. et d. (or 0. are not necessarily available for participation in ASR. 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. Jones (1988) found that the viscosity of the ASR gel may depend on the ratio of alkalis to SiO2. with gels having a low alkaksilica ratio being more fluid.3. and negative for C:S below 1. of fly ash be considered available may be too conservative for low-alkali ashes and not conservative for high-alkali ashes.of the fly ash in a typical concrete never dissolves. (1995b) found that all mortar mixtures capable of reducing the alkali concentration to under 2% Na20. . while the amount of alkali which the pozzolanic reaction removes fiom solution may depend on the pozzolanic activity of the fly ash. because most will have already participated in hydration and pozzolanic reactions (Duchesne and BCruE 1994a).3. Particularly for pozzolanic materials such as fly ash. Low C:S gel which is developed in the presence of a highly reactive pozzolan as discussed above.
while also making the reaction much more surface area dependent. Many natural reactive aggregates. . On the other hand. 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. 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. to provide a medium through which reactants may be transported to the reaction site.crystalline structure. the ion collcentration of the pore solution is inversely proportional to the d c ratio. e.. In addition.or crypto. opal. 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. and to develop expansive pressure through continued uptake of water by the expansive gel. The non-porous structure of glass aggregate may slow the 'reaction for some particles limiting the reaction to the surface of the particle.ROLEOF SILICA The silica aggregates which may take part in ASR are generally those with an amorphous or a highly disordered. t determines the mean distance of cemnt paste to be found between a reactive aggregate particle and the capillary pore system.g. Also affecting the availability of water are the porosity and permeability h e porosity of the matrix. higher porosity does provide space for the ASR products to expand into without exerting stress on the concrete matrix. 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. 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). Such a structure will dissolve readdy in high pH environments and has greater surface reactivity and susceptibility to surface disruption and breakage.
leading to cracking and loss of stitkess and strength. leaving behind ca2'. 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. though with observed C:S ratios between 0. 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. based on work by Chatterji. (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. 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. et al.The effects of water reducers on ASR have been studied by Lenzner (1981). while the ultimate ASR expansion is decreased. the degree to which the concrete is able or not able to accommodate gel expansion without being strained. . or have sufficient strength to restrain the ASR gel. Regourd.2 and 1. (1989): Reactive silica + 2 Na' + Ca(OH)2 (aq) + aq + Sodium silica complex + ca2'+ aq K? may replace Na' in the above reaction. This observation that accelerated ASR is usually accompanied by reduced ultimate expansion is in agreement with Jones (1988) and others.O. This gel has been d e m i by Regourd. (198 1) as having a structure and texture to CSH developed from cemnt hydration. and it may be noted that the possibility of this reaction and its rate will depend on the available concentrations of reactive silica. alkalis and Ca(OH)2 in solution. with observations that ASR is accelerated by water reducers at a given wlc ratio. et al. et al.
Ludwig (1981) has likewise verified the osmotic mhanism by comparing observed concrete matrix forces with those predicted by osmotic pressure theory. 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. ca2+. otherwise gel will be produced and dispersed with no development of mechanical pressure on the concrete matrix. suggesting that the expansion of ASR gel is due not simply to absorption of water. e. or as the Ca(OH)2 concentration of the pore solution tends to zero. 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. thereby precipitating CSH.OH-. and H20. They found that K tends to zero as the fineness approaches that of cement. otherwise silica concentration reaches equhbrium and migration stops). In those cases where expansion is avoided.22 There is considerable experhntal evidence. they suggest that it is because in those cases silica migrates out of the reactive grain as quickly material moves in.. On the other hand. but rather a net m a t e d flow into the reactive grain including Na'. . 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.g. The rate of migration of silica out of the grain depends on the grain size (for a large grain. Jones (1988) and especially Gillott and Beddoes (1981). to suggest that the swelling process is analogous with osmosis. being dnven by the lower chemical potential of bound. Chatterji and Christensen (1990) have developed a more thorough theory which includes but goes beyond those of Jones and others. hydrated water versus fire water.
mineral admixtures. (1993). and other variable paramters of a concrete m i x cannot be addressed by these tests. because t h e material can then be made identical to that prepared in practice. The effects of the cement. The prism test in longest use is ASTM C227. et al. 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. expose reactive aggregate to a standard solution of alkali hydroxides. et al. such as ASTM C289.therefore standardized prisms should still be used to allow comparisons between different researchers' results. Chemical tests. What most all researcher agree on. water content. most notably by Stark. This and similar tests have been criticized recently. and no extrapolation of results is necessary from the test m i x and test materials to those of the field concrete. This test has also been found to be somewhat lenient. for example. this test generally gives good results with low aJkali cement. then use spectroscopy or other analytical chemical methods to evaluate the progress of the reaction.Several methods have historically been available for the evaluation of ASR and means of mitigating it. concrete prisms tests are rarely used in practical research for these . though they are not always effective in practice (Stark. is that the ideal situation would be to test concrete prisms. as being too lenient and being limited to evaluating aggregate in isolation. 1993). particularly when low alkali cement is used to mitigate the reaction. 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. 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. however. Rogers and Hooton 1991). which exposes mortar prisms to a standard moist environment and monitors the expansion developed due to MR.
that even in the accelerated method the alkali concentration of the mortar pore water correlates well with the expansion results for all samples. . This test appears to be capable of determining the required quantity and characteristics of fly ash necessary to mitigate ASR. and the most critical mechanisms involved when fly ash mitigates ASR are alkali dilution and entrapmnt of alkali ions in CSH (B6rub6. 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.concentration up regardless of the cemnt alkali content. however. et al. Fournier and Berub6 (1991) have documented the effects of WICratio and temperature of testing. however. Several researchers have further defined the paramters which may be expected to affect the results of this test. B6rub6. considering that the test specimens are completely immersed in a high-alkali NaOH solution. found. add the caveat that the test may be inaccurate at hgh alkali contents.A test which has been developed more recently by Davies and Oberholster (1987) and which has now been adopted by ASTM as C1260. and determined that cement composition does not have any sigdcant mfluence. do.25% Na20. et al. 1995b). (They found that at low concentrations of NaOH the NaOH pulled the OH.) It is somwhat surprising to many that this accelerated test works to obtain consistent results with fly ash. though they speculate that it might if moderate concentrations of NaOH were used. while at high NaOH concentrations. is an accelerated mark bar test using a concentrated alkali hydroxide solution and an elevated temperature to achieve the acceleration. by weight of the cement. 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. It is now among the most common accelerated methods used for evaluating potential aggregates. and suggest keeping the total alkali content of the bars to no more than 1.concentration down regardless of the cement alkali content. BCrub6. the NaOH pulled the OH. et al.
08% and 0.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. particularly compressive. Others. . and methods must be used to provide experimntal control of possible environmental variation.0.05%). Alongside the allowable limits of expansion. but have limited use because of the normal variation in these properties due to variation in aggregate. but not 'immersed.04% (BCruM. tensile and flexure strength (Curtil and Habita 1994). particularly with the longer term concrete prism tests. The standard Canadian evaluation methods using concrete prisms is regarded as among the most reliable. notably Hobbs (1988). base their recommendations on correlations between observed expansions in laboratory tests and observed performance of corresponding concrete in field applications. particularly the expansion necessary for cracks to develop (approx. Rogers and Hooton (1991) have studied various storage schemes for concrete prisms. et al. and with a temperature of 38°C gave the most expansion. consideration must be given to the environment used in the test. 0. 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. Their recommndations are between 0. cement. 1995b). notably Stark. (1993). finding that storage in a sealed box with the prism held above water. Prisms stored at 23°C in the wet room showed substantially less expansion with some evidence of leaching of alkalis fiom the concrete.03 . Other properties of concrete have been explored as indicators of ASR.20% as critical amounts of expansion after 14 days of ASTM C1260 testing. base their recommndations on the mechanical properties of the concrete. et al. and mineral admixtures. Some researchers. with a expansion limit criterion of 0.
Duchesne and BCrubd (1994a) suggest a limit of 300 kg/m3.However. thereby trapping alkalis on their surface and preventing movement of alkalis into reactive silica grains (Duchesne and BCrubd 1994~). limiting total alkali content in the m i x should mitigate MR.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. 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. Because of the mitigating ability of air voids. et al. 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. thus. comparisons of ASR expansion between airentrained and non-airentrained concretes must be made very cautiously. because this electrostatic trapping is weaker than a true chemical bond. this may only slow the movement of alkalis and slow the reaction without completely stopping it. 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. 1995b). Retarders have also been shown to hamper nucleation and growth of Ca(OH)2 and decrease the rate of hydration of C3S and C2S. There appears to be a critical alkali content below which expansion does not occur (BCrubd. 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. .
There are.tension forces may reduce the viscosity of ASR gels. several notable difference between glass and fly ash as potential pozzolans negative: . et. the effectiveness of a pozzolan both for strength enhancement and for ASR mitigation is known to depend upon fineness. et. al.s o n positive. al. Glass is entirely amorphous. the structure of fly ash. This may or may not be an advantage for glass .ca2+and ASR gel. 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). rather than the 10% . et. however. . 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. because of the different diffusivities of R+. others The fineness of glass w i l l depend upon the grinding method used.Stark.The surfactant properties of air-entraining admixtures and plasticizers may affect the potential gradient between fiee and hydrated water and their influence on surface.30% observed by Hobbs (1986a) and corroborated by others. Introduction of LiOH or certain other alkali salts has been found to mitigate ASR. with a layer of amorphous silica surrounding a crystalline core.be detrimental and may allow nearly all of its alkalis to be released into solution. in contrast to fly ash which is often an amorphous layer covering a crystalline core. the morphology of glass (entirely amorphous) may . 1993). The a l k a l icontent of glass may be very sigmficant -note particularly that in light of the theory by Stark. but not producing the same expansive properties within the gel (Stark. 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. al. If this is correct. mentioned above. (1993) have developed a theory that the inner portion of a reactive grain may develop expansive ASR gel while the surface does not.
et al. T h i s requires that the glass in the fly ash goes into solution first. et. The age at which a fly ash concrete will equal and begin to exceed the. strength of a similar cement-only concrete usual& varies from 28 to 90 days. 1989). The effect of fly ash on the structure of concrete is. al. first. Monz6. . after some t k . 1989).2 to 13. The ASTM requirements for fly ash will be discussed with regard to the specific fly ashes used in this experimental program in Chapter 3. et al. however. 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. the silica in the fly ash reacts with the Ca(OH)2 developed by cement hydration and produces secondary CSH by the pozzolanic reaction. though some may gain strength only much later.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.3 (Fraay. followed by a higher ultimate strength at later ages. and second. 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. which only happens substantdly beyond a pH of about 13.
1989). (1989) refers to this period before the onset of pozzolanic activity as the 'incubation' period of the fly ash. leading to a more rapid dissolution of the glass phases in the fly ash wlc ratio may also contribute to this effect. either due to nucleation before the onset of pozzolanicity. Fraay. because as the alkalis are released into solution. will slow the dissolution of the fly ash glass network. because a lower wlc ratio will result in a smaller volume of pore water and higher concentrations of aJl of the chemical species (Fraay. or due to the pozzolanic reaction. 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. 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. that the early contribution of fly ash to strength development is primarily due to nucleation. It has been found by researchers generally. while the crystWamorphous ratio and particle size distribution influence the strength activity. the onset occurs at later ages (Gopalan 1993). et al. A high alkali content in either the cement or the tly ash. and the S i a from the fly ash particle . Fraay. or both.as the relative proportion of fly ash is increased. The onset of pozzolanic activity by fly ash is itself dependent upon the fly ash:cement ratio in the mix . 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. et al. also note that the precipitation of CSH around a fly ash particle. for example by Gopalan (1993). while the later contribution is primarily due to pozzolanicity. The strength activity of fly ash can be broken down into two distinct effect: nucleation and pozzolanic activity. the pH of the solution will be increased. will accelerate the onset of pomlanic activity. As the pozzolanic reaction continues into its later stages. the pH will tend to increase because of the continuing decrease in h e water.(1994) have found that the effects of fly ash on water demand and workability depend primarily on the fjneness. et al.
is difticult to defend because of the clear. especially . These effects require carell consideration. There are other effects of fly ash which also must be included in a consideration of fly ash as a mineral admixture.e. i x .ions and c ~ Z 'ions are consumed in the pozzolanic reaction.30 will travel ever further distances before hally combining with CaO and precipitating as hydrated CSH. 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.&penden= of ASR-mitigating ability on properties of fly ash which do not affect the developmnt of strength or reduction in permeability.. FLYASH IN MTIIGATION OF W .fly ash causing a reduction in pemability and thereby limiting water transport . chemically unbound) carbon. but lower quality Class F ashes have actually been observed to increase the requirement by up to 30%. A third possible reason . and to a lesser extent its Si02and A1203 contents (Duchesne and Berubi 1994b). The amount of airentraining admixture required to achieve a particular air content is generally increased by the use of fly ash. leading to a more and more fmely re6ned pore structure in the cqncrete. but is indicated indirectly by the loss on ignition. 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 often decreases the Fly ash also generally affects the amount of water required by the m water requirement by 10 to 20%. The component of fly ash which actually causes this is tke (i. and of OH. 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. The properties of ily ash which primarily determine its effectiveness in mitigation of ASR are its alkali content.
is becoming of lower quality and exhiiiting more variability. the coal power industry is moving to a scheme of marketing hrgh quality. not used in this research) are given in Appendix 3. 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 tripartite plots of the systems Ca0-AlzQ-Si02 and Ca0-Na20e-Si@ in Figure 2. those of the cements and fly ashes used.1. i.. is another consideration. as they may dramatically affect the procedures required in handling concrete in practice. along with those of the cemnts and fly ashes used. controlled fly ash at sigmkant markup fiom the (negative) cost of the raw material. In many areas. especialEy high quality ash. to which the glass might otherwise be chemically comparable. on the other hand. The fly ash which r for a nominal charge. POWDJZRED WASIEGIASS Powdered waste glass. The availability of fly ash.1.2 also ilIustrate the similarities and differences between the various materials.when using some of the poorly controlled Class F ashes. The gradation of the glass used in this research is comparable to that of a fine fly ash. and of a typical silica furne for comparison. might fill the niche of a lowcost waste material able to act as a Class F pozzolan with low variability. . Increasing demand for high quality fly ash. The gradation of the powdered glass. coupled with changes in power plant operation in response to environmental regulation and market forces. mixed color container glass ground to cemnt fineness or h e r . both fiom a single sources and between sources and regions (Mehta 1989). has increased the cost of high quality fly ash and increased the quantity of low quality ash used in concrete applications. and the typical gradation of a silica fume (presented only for comparison. In these cases. though substantially coarser than silica furne. The chemical composition of waste glass is also detailed in Appendix 3.e.
-SIG. 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. 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. 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) . . . . Beside their composition. * FIGURE 2. .2. SILICA FUWL . however. . 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. . 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 . .
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%.
20%/20% and 20%/25%. and provided baselines for several evaluation of the accelerated ASR results.43. to investigate the effectiveness of powdered glass and fly ash in mitigating ASR at the pessimum content. 20% glass aggregate and no fly ash A summary of all of the concrete mixes. 1%.5%.3. 5%. fine gradation range.It was from the Phase-I1 laboratory mixes that candidates were selected for the Field Trial. 10%/15%. This material was treated as a cement supplement. and to parallel the Field Trial and Powdered Glass Series concrete mixes. alI in mixes prepared with a wl(c +fi ratio of 0. Prelirmnary work investigated and documented the ASR reactivity of glass aggregate. The Accelerated ASR Series used mortar prisms stored at elevated temperatures in concentrated NaOH solution to develop ASR deterioration within seven to fourteen days. A summary of all of the accelerated ASR mixes is provided in Appendix 3. and glass aggregate within a limited.2. 0%/20%. the Field Trial was begun to test the usability and performance of the concrete under typical site conditions. and a l l except the 0%/0% control section included high-range water reducer. is provided in Appendix 3. supplementing the cement by 0%. Subsequent series were used to determine the pessimurn content of glass aggregate. Based on the results of all of the previous laboratory studies. 2. A sidewalk was constructed with various trial sections including glassfly ash replacement fractions of 0%/0%. and two types of fly ash A J of these sections included air entrainmnt. fiom the glass aggregate stock by grinding in a ball grinder. 10% and 20% by weight. both laboratory and field tnal. as well as several selected concrete mixes fiom the Glass-Fly Ash Series. 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 . .
Inc. The washing process for the glass aggregate not only removed s o m dust. particularly sugars. and the research differed somewhat fiom those used in the f ~ l t is denoted as aggregate A and aggregate B in the appendices. while for some others. J. 7/92 Third Shipment of Coarse Glass 5/93 Fist Shipment of P8 Fine Glass 8/93 Second Shipment of P8 Fine Glass .' The aggregates used during the fmt portion of d r i a l s and during the later research. for which the aggregate was oven dried and used in a dry condition to ensure a constant d ( c +j)over the entire series. however. and the material smaller than 300 pm was removed by washing and discarded.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. The moisture content of the natural aggregate was tested for later use in calculating the resulting d ( c +j)ratio. but also dissolved and removed some organic contaminants. For the majority of the mixes. For some of the mixes a reduced gradation was desired. while the fine aggregate was entirely washed river sand. Schmidt Corp. obtained fiom a commercial municipal recycler. the glass was washed and the fixtion smaller than 75 pm was discarded as part of the washing process. Glass aggregate was crushed container glass. the material was used as received. * The waste glass aggregate was obtained from M. and removed some light components from the glass. with the exception of the Powdered Glass Series.' For those mixes using unwashed glass. 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 . particularly paper remaining from the original waste stream After the ' The natural aggregates were obtained locally through a donation by Lycon. glass aggregate was ground in the laboratory to increase the fines content (75 pm to 2 mm) before washing.
does have somewhat more fine material than Gravel A.2.had been washed.1.2 and 3.2. The use of the various combinations of glass aggregates in the concrete mixes is summarized in Appendix 3.3. and specific gravity and absorption (ASTM C127.1. though Gravel B. C128) were performed with the results detailed in Table 3. It may be observed that the natural gravel and sand used as control aggregates are fairly constant throughout the research. is proiided in the Notation section before Chapter 1. 3. .2. then testing a sample by drying (ASTM C566) to determine the remaining moisture content. The notation in Table 3. also used in the Field Trial and the later laboratory work. AGGREGATE SPECIFIC GRAVITIES AND A B S O ~ O N S . along with other notation used to describe concrete mixes throughout this thesis. TABLE 3.1. Aggregate Specific Gravity Absorption (%) Natural Gravel Natural Sand Waste Glass Several distinct shipments of coarse and fine glass were used. its moisture content was controlled either by drying to constant weight . (WO moisture content). The gradations of the aggregates used are presented in Figures 3. used in the Field Trial and the later laboratory work. The glass aggregates used in the research are summarized in Table 3. Standard tests for gradation (ASTM C136). and Sand B.glass . is slightly coarser overall than Sand A. different combinations of glass gradations were necessary for the different aggregate replacement percentages. and to match the gradation of the glass aggregate as closely as possible to the natural aggregate which it replaced. or by drying to between 0 and 2% moisture content.
Second Shipment of P8 Fine Glass. All of the coarse glass gradations. with overall wider gradations. are h e r than the natural gravel.TABLE 3. Third Shipment of Coarse Glass Washed. meanwhile.extremely flaky particle shape Washed. GLASS AGGREGATE SUMMARY DESCRIPTIONS.1. similar to FG with less RlOO fraction retained during washing Washed. and the finest fiactions in the glass aggregate are much smaller than the finest fiactions in the natural gravel. limited. Gradation #1 Ground in Laboratory from Glass FC . CD and CE are very similar. glasses CC. First Shipment of Fine Glass Unwashed form of Glass FA Washed. Second Shipment of Fine Glass Washed. form of Glass FG with P50 fraction discarded Washed. Designation Description Washed. while glasses CA and CB are similar to each other.extremely flaky particle shape Unwashed form of Glass FG FG Washed. Second Shipment of Coarse Glass Washed. standardized gradation of Fine Glass for use in Accelerated ASR Series FH FI Examining the coarse glass gradations in Figure 3. used in Field Trial and Powdered Glass Series. Gradation #1 Ground in Laboratory from Glass FC . First Shipment of Coarse Glass Unwashed form of Glass CA Washed.2. but with significantly more fine material than the other three and wider gradations. . First Shipment of P8 Fine Glass Washed. Blend of Glasses CC and CE Washed.
. 0% 0. . . .. . . ... .. CB. . .FD AND FE. . . .- Glass CA .1 1 10 100 Particle Size (mm) FIGURE 3.01 0. ... ..ACGLERA'IED M R GRADATION. ... ASR Sand .. GRADATIONS OF NATURAL....+ .. .1 1 10 Particle Size (mm) FIGURE 3...2. 0% 0.. .. .FC. . . .01 0.AND COARSE GLASSES CA CDANDCE. . . . GRADATIONS OF N U A I R 'A L SANDS A AND B. .. ... . .. . . . . .. .. .1... ...CC... . * . ... .. ...Accel.. GRAVELS A AND B.. AND FINEGLASSES F k FB.
....:. ..... .. . ... ..... .. .. ..... .: ... .. . .. .... .. ... . . . .-..... . AND FINEGLASSES FF. ... . ..3 show even greater variation. . .. . :..... . . .. . ... .. ... .. GRADA~ON OF NATURAL SANDSA AND B. is much narrower... . Glasses FA..... . . ..... . ( C . . . ... .. . .. . . .:.. .. ... . -..ground in the laboratory from g h s FC.. .. ... . . ... .. . ...... ....... . .. ........ . . .... L 2 ..... .. .. :.. . . ... .. . Fl3 and FC are very similar to each other. .:.. :. .... t! 2': : : : ... . .. .. . . ..... ...:. .. .... . . ... . .. ..... .... .. ... .3. . ... . .. .:. . . . . . .... .. . ......._..... .. .. .. .. . .... ... .. has a somewhat wider gradation. .. .. . .. .... with a high content (45%) of a single size fraction... .. .+. . ... . ...... ........ ......:. ........... 0..... ....... .. . ...... . . . ..... .. ..: .. . ... ...... . . .... ... . .. .. . a . .. . . . .. .... . . .. ....:.. . ... ... . . ...'. . .... .. . . .... .. ... :.. . nearly equaling the natural sand with finer gradations overall......... I . ... .. ...... . .. .. . . . ...... ..-. ... ... .*.... ... ... . . . :....... . ..:. .. .. .. :. . .... .:. FG.1 1 10 Particle Size (mm) FIGURE 3. .... . :.. .... ..01 0. .... while glass FE. ...:. . .... .. ..... .. .. .. :. . . .. . .. Glass FD. ... ...-:i 0% 1 . ..... ... .....9 . .. ..... . . ... . ... . .. . . ..... .. . ....'. ..:_. .. ... ..... Glasses FF and FG (Figure 3.. .... ... --*--Glass FI-I ... . . .. . . . ...... . . . L 2. .: ... ...: . . .. .. . . ... .. . ... . ..:_'_ ... ... ...2 and 3. ... . . . . . .. .... .... ..Glass FJ . ..:. ... -Sand A ~SandB Glass FF . -... .. .. .. ... : ..:.. . .. .. . .. 1...... . . .... .... .. ...-:"? 1. . . <... .. . .. . ....:.. .. . ....3) show the widest gradations among the fine glasses. Gradations FH and R are narrower and somewhat coarser than glasses FF and FG. ... . :": " ... .. . . . .. . . -. .. with fairly wide gradations. ... .Glass FG .... .. ...:..... . . .. .. . .. ... ..... ... though their greatest fraction is slightly larger than that of the sand... . ..... L .. .. ... .... .... .. .. ' .. ..... :.. also ground in the laboratory from glass FC. . . . ....... ..... ....' ' ' . . . .. .:.. .. .......... ... .Glass FI . .. . . .... ... .... ... The natural sands are finer and exhibit a wider gradation than any of the fineglass gradations.... . . '. .. . . . FH..... FI AND FJ. . . with substantially more fine material than glass FE. ..:.. . . .. .. ...... ..... :. .. .. ..The fine glass gradations in Figures 3.....:. . .. .I:".. ... .... :.. .
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. Two type I portland cements were used during the research . ) ~ three sources of Class F ash4. Fly Ash F3 has substantnlly different characteristics fiom the other two Class F ashes. Fly Ash F2 is the closest to allowable limits -it is only over by 0. Several of the fly ashes used deviate from ASTM standards in some way. characteristics are given in Appendix 3. including its gradation.CEMENTS. Fly Ash C appears to be the only one which completely satisfies the ASTM requirements for its classification. The fly ash used in the majority of this research has fallen roughly under the Class F classification.49 Na20e). and Fly . FLYASHES AND POWDERED GLASS The powdered glass was obtained by grinding Glass FG in a ball grinder to an average particle size . though it is marketed as a Class F ash. The pozzolanic content actually falls within the Class C range. and the extremely high LO1 interferes The low-alkali cement was donated by Holnam Cement Corp. and one moderate-alkali (0. and it also exceeds allowable limits on SO3content and Na20.. ashes were obtained fiom one source of Class C ash. Fly Ash F1 falls within the Class C limits on pozzolanic content ( Si02 + A1203+ F e 0 3 ). The moderate-alkali cement was donated by LaFarge Corp.3.one low-alkali (0. and were characterized according to ASTM C618 (1993).5% on the SO3content. The principal requirements of the ASTM fly ash classifications (C618) and the relevant characteristics of the experimental fly ashes are compared in Table 3.67 ~ a 2 0 . 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 .1.
16% 50% .3.5% Complete details of the compositions and characteristics of the cements and fly ashes are tabulated in Appendix 3. 5 * . the mid-range the air-entraining water reducer was W.2% .2% 3.2% 5 1. R. The high-range water reducer was W.5% < 6% 0.8% = 5% 9. R.7% = 1.5% = 0.with effective use of water reducing and airentraining admixtures and increases the fraction of light particles present.both proportioned to a standard dosage within the manufacturer's recommendation^.74 urn3. 1 1. Air-entr-nt was provided by a neutralized vinsol resin solution in compliance with ASTM C260.1. R. Daravair -The dosage of Daravair was adjusted is discussed in the text. in compliance with ASTM C494 Type A) . = Loss on Ignition (LOU 5 6% 0.1% = 0.4% 5. Grace & Co. P S .98 urn3.0% 76. with the dosage adjusted as necessary to achieve 5% to 7% entrained air.5% 0.2% none Na20. Daracem-50 used at a dosage of 1.7% none 15% 2.4% 61. WRDA-19 at a dosage of 3.4% 73% .70% 64. Grace & Co.^ . in compliance with ASTM C494 Type F)and a mid range water reducer (a proprietary solution of dispersing and finishing agents and hydration catalysts. Grace & Co. TABLE 3. 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. admixture was W.5% = 1. Water reducers included a high-range water reducer (a modified naphthalene sulfonate solution.8% 15.
to more closely approach the water requirement of the DOT specification. in a further effort to approach the water requirement of the DOT specification. 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. the DOT specification for concrete incorporating fly ash Standard Type A-FA.178) of the Glass-Fly Ash Series. To reduce the number of variables requiring consideration. a high-range water reducer was added while the target slump was retained at 50 mm. It was necessary to deviate from the DOT specifications with regard to rnix water. Phase-I (batches 1. thus to ensure workability. The mix design specifications are summarized in Table 3. . it was decided to spec@ a target slump for the research mixes. the Field Trial and the Powdered Glass Series.139) and Phase-II (batches 140. the target slump was 75 mm. a target of 50 mrn was used. In Phase-I.In keeping with the intended use in concrete pavements. In some of the mixes.4 for the Wisconsin DOT Standard Specification. because the amount of m i x water specified did not provide sufficient workability with waste glass aggregate. with the expectation that the resulting water requirement would be greater than that in the DOT specification. 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. while starting with Phase-II.
24. % of cement Entrained Air Field Trial 336 1873 40 0. % of total cement and fly ash Powdered Glass. 30. 25. 12.20 Powdered Glass Series 336 1873 40 0.4. 25 None None 6%+1% None 138 to 171 None 6%&2% 3. % of total aggregate Glass Aggregate. 12.36 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. 15.20 336 1873 35-45 None 336 1873 40 0. 10. % of total aggregate Fine Glass Aggregate.25.24.74 For 50 mm slump 0. 20. 30 None 6%+1% 3.20. 5.74 144 .90 35% of total glass aggregate 20% of total glass aggregate 0.20.TABLE 3.74 for 50 mm slump 0. 20. 136% Replacement Mixes Fine Glass Aggregate. 2. 36. 24.5.20 ' 6%&2% High-Range Water Reducer (L.35 None None None For 75 mrn slump 336 1873 40 0./m3) Mix Water (kg/m3) 3.8% Replacement Mixes Class F Fly Ash. WI DOT Glass-Fly Ash Series TYFA Phase-I Phase-I1 Total Cement and Hy Ash (kg/m3) Total Aggregate (kg/m3) Fine Aggregate.48. SUMMARY OF MIX DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS. 1. 10.
Mixing and sample preparation procedures for the field trials followed the previous laboratory procedures as closely as possible.25 m3 drum mixer similar to the laboratory mixer was used with a batch size of 0. When used. Finally. Materials in the field trial were generally handled in a wet condition. after which they were transported to the lab and demolded. and tensile and compressive strength cylinders (150 mm x 300 mm or 75 mm x 150 mm). while superplasticizer was added separately. unit weight and air content were measured (ASTM C143. C496 and C666). while moisture contents of the materials used were measured for later use in analysis. the slump. Strength and k e d t h a w specimens were moist cured according to their respective standards (ASTM C39.064 m3 in accordance with ASTM C192 and C31. then demolded and their original (1 day) length m u r e d .07 m3 laboratory drum mixer in batches ranging between 0. and slump was used for quality control rather than moisture per se. expansion prisms and freezelthaw prisms were cast and covered with plastic for 24 hours. ASR expansion test prisms were moist cured for 24 hours. AND HANDLING AND CONCWTE TESTING The Glass-Fly Ash Series and Powdered Glass Series concrete was mixed in a 0. fieedthaw prisms (75 mm x 100 mm x 400 mm). Each batch had its slump.17 m3 to allow careful control and adjustment of the mix. moist curing was then continued for 28 days before storage in a saturated lime water bath. The specimens were then handled according to the same procedures as the laboratory specimens.CONCRETE M ~ G CURING . a 0. air-entraining admixture was combined with the mix water. Tensile and compressive cylinders. . and expansion prisms (100 mm x 100 mm x 250 mm) were cast as appropriate for each batch. As mixing was nearing completion. C138 and C231).028 m3 and 0. unit weight and air content measured according to the same procedures as for the laboratory mixes. a small amount of water was added to adjust the slump if necessary to achieve a target slump.
224. 28. and expansions being measured at various ages up to 21 days. 7.56.112. 180. 4. 270 and 365 days.90. cardboard bearing strips were used for the split-cylinder tension test with a constant load rate of 13MPdmin. with the peak load recorded.The Field Trial test sections were formed and placed by contractor personnel with wheelbarrows and hand tools. Compressive strengths were measured at various ages fiom 7 to 365 days according to ASTM C39. Mortar bar specimens (25mm x 25mm x 250mm) were cast according to ASTM C305 for the accelerated ASR testing. These two schedules were combined in the actual research. upon which the concrete prism test was modeled.4.7. 56. then stored in 1N NaOH at 80°C for 24 hours before their initial length measurement. Burlap was used to ensure continuous moist curing. the cylinders were capped with a sulfur-based capping compound (ASTM C617) to provide a stable and uniform bearing surface. resulting in measurements being taken at ages of 1. the load rate was held constant at 13 MPdmin. further measurements were recorded at ages of 730 and 1095 days.90.28. 112. 14. and 448 days. calls for measurements at ages of 1. 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.3'65 and 448 days.180. The schedule outlined in ASTM C227. a standard dial . 7. to allow both direct comparison between Phase-I and Phase-I1data and use of the ASTM standard schedule. which continued for seven days following placing. 14. Prior to testing. After the initially planned testing was complete. 28.270. To accurately measure the length of the specimens. The cylinders were loaded in compression until failure. 224. 4. 14. Tensile strength was tested at various ages fiom 7 to 56 days according to ASTM C496. The original plan for the Glass-Fly Ash Series included ASR expansion measurements at ages of 1.
longitudinal. and interpolation used where intermediate weights are required. and by visual observation of the test sections' general condition and resistance to surface wear. The length. 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.28. may be calculated without considering the weight of the specbn.0001 in. for calculation of the dynamic modulus. an important indicator of resistance to kze/thaw &gdabon (ASTM C666). with a precision of 0. 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. .gauge length comparator was used (ASTM C490). the initial dynamic modulus for the freeze-thaw testing program was measured. was measured at various intervals. Weights were measured at several times during the testing schedule. the weight loss itself is a useful indicator of durability. The Field Trial test sections were tested at ages of 7. and torsional fi-equencies according to ASTM C215. The transverse fi-equency. as well as the fundamental transverse. The calibration of the gauge was checked before and after each measurement. 120 and 365 days by non-destructive testing using the rebound hammer (ASTM C805). to ensure accurate operation. The durability factor. depth. however. at a temperature of 40°F. by taking cores for compressive strength (ASTM C42). After curing for 28 days.120 and 365 days. 28. width. and weight of the prisms were measured. The accompanying specimens cured in the laboratory were tested in compression and tension according to ASTM C39 and C496 at ages of 7. 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.
01 per 5.96) of the control mixes with no glass or fly ash. a cement supplement. This is probably because during Phase-I the coarse aggregate fraction was changed from glass CA for replacement levels of . 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. 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.1 is clearly not linear. respectively. showing a characteristic shape for each series with a constant fly ash content with a sharp discontinuity between 36% and 48% glass aggregate. powdered waste glass and fly ash. powdered waste glass and fly ash are posited as an aggregate replacement.In the results and analysis which follow in Chapters 4 and 5. 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.2 and 4.3 illustrate this relationship for crushed waste glass. it is insightful to examine their water demand for a constant workability.1. 4. determined by a linear regression (R~ = 0. and a cement replacement respectively. Figures 4. The water demand is shown on these plots as the w/(c +fl necessary to achieve a slump of 50 rnm.17 mm of slump. 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). 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. T h e increased water demand due to glass rather than natural aggregate shown in Figure 4.
3) is low.0% to 36% to glasses CC.. 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.4). CD and CE for replacement levels of 48% and 90%. in combination with 48% or 90% glass aggregate. Examining these glasses' effects on water demand in Figure 4.1. it is clear that the Merence in gradation affects both the intercept and to a lesser degree the slope of the water demand curve.1 alongside their gradations in Figure 3. The water demand of powdered glass (Figure 4. with some interaction with the glass being seen in a greater slope for higher levels of glass replacemnt (i.e. . 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%. and the fraction of coarse glass aggregate used was increased &om 65% to 80% of the total glass aggregate (see Table 3. the fly ash itself exhibits a higher demand for water than when it is used in combination with 0% to 36% glass aggregate).
36% G l a s s 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Fly Ash Content (% of Total Cementitious) 0.3.42 0% 5% 10% 15% Powdered Glass Content (% of Cement) FIGURE 4.The increased water demand by glass aggregate and fly ash shows its effect in the strength developed by the various mixes. . as will be seen in the next section. WATER DEMAND BY POWDERED GLASS CONTENT. . FA F1.
5 mm (e.OBSERVATIONS DURING MIXING AND HANDLING During mixing and handling. Photomicrographs of these glass sizes may be seen in Figures 1. coarse glass.5 mm had notably different properties. similar observations were made of the poor shape of the coarse glass pieces. fine glass. All of these characteristics were improved by using a gradation containing only fine glass. with the sharp edges and protrusions creating a hazard requiring heavy gloves. sand vs. Glass particles between 1.. powdered glass.1 through 1. Malung comparisons between materials of similar fineness. placing and consolidating. Glass produced by a commercial crusher and smaller than about 1. while glass particles smaller than about 1. i. the coarse glass produced substantially harsher workability than similarly graded gravel. Sharp fiacture surfaces and edges were prevalent. with no sharp edges and no noticeable friability. and fly ash vs. retaining the flat shape and smooth molded surface of the original glass bottles.5 mm and 3 r n m showed some of the characteristics noted above. instead resembling a sub-angular sand. Glass FG) was no longer immediately identifiable as glass bottle pieces. and a noticeable fi-iabilityduring handling and mixing. making handling dficult and necessitating the use of heavy l l of the particles showed gloves. and the powdered glass produced slightly better workability than similarly graded fly ash.. . the fine glass produced approximately the same or slightly harsher workability than similar sand. The cement paste was not able to coat the edges of the coarse glass particles because of the sharp convex vertices. During mixing. 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. gravel vs. and still further by using powdered glass. The coarse glass pieces were extremely harsh. Partial ffactures were visible in many of the particles.g.e.6 in Chapter 1. These glass sizes were much more easily handled.
4.5. The dryer mixes were judged d~fficultto consolidate. but it was necessary to add some additional water to the surface of the pavement to produce additional paste during finishing. wl(c +f) of the form XI^'. The fly ashes generally performed as expected.7. wl(c +f) at ages of 28.0%. in accordance with Neville (1981).6 and 4. 90. 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. Some of the core samples taken fiom the sidewalk did display poor consolidation in the bottom layers.LOW-ALKALIMIXES An overview of strength results vs. 4.^^"^^ for the control concrete has - been superimposed on each plot. An approximate trend line of strength vs. 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 with work all were able to be consolidated by hand. workers commented that the mixes with fine glass only were workable and h h a b l e . with the non-air-entrained mixes assumed to have 2% entrapped air for the purposes of this calculation (Kosmatka and Panarese 1988). while X . 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.During the field trial. 4. providmg similar workability to cement. 180 and 365 days is iliustrated for the low-alkali cement in Figures 4. with the exception of Fly Ash F3. For this equation. the parameter Yis related to the composition of the concrete. respectively. causing bleeding and segregation of light particles and making finishing di6cult. STRENGTH AND STRENGTH DEVELOPMENT S~GTHOVERVIEW. Fly Ash F3 was more coarsely graded and contained many light particles. in those cases where percentages are given. particularly the type of cement.
possibly because the ASR activity was greater than anticipated and could not be mitigated by the powdered glass. the powdered glass series has lost further ground in strength development in comparison to similar O/FG mixes (Figure 4.5). Y was thus fitted to all of the strength data for a moderate-alkd cement and lowalkali cement. They display somewhat disappointing strength compared to sirmlar O/FG mixes. . The Powdered Glass Series at 28 days (Figure 4.. • - 00100 a OOFD 00m 00100 Field Trial 00/00 Pwd Glass' . respectively.54 varies with age. while X was used to fit the data to each age.4.28 DAYS. The strength characteristics of the various forms of glass aggregate are evident from these plots. Sl'RENCirT-lOVERVIEW -LOW-ALKALICEMENT. 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. 6 in x 12 in) as outlined by Nasser and Al-Maneseer (1987). 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.
but even with high-range .mnt in the Glass-Fly Ash Series: 00lFD and C E R .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. perform as well or better than the control mix trend h e at ages of 180 and 365 days (Figures 4.6 and 4.40 and 0. with the mix CE/FC containing coarse glass aggregate not only performing poorly at high wl(c +fi ratios. 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.5.7). thus demonstrating the detrimental effect that extremely poor particle shapes may have.53 even with high-range The m water reducer. The other mixes with low-alkali ce. all perform poorly.5 I). With strengths of about 30 to 35 MPa at 28 days and 45 to 50 MPa at 365 days. but at a very high w/(c +fi ratio of 0. STRENGIH OVERVIEW-LOW-ALKALI CEMENT-90 DAYS.43 -within the typical range of wl(c +fi for pavemnt concretes. they should perform very well as pavemnt. and equally Important. i x OO/FE performs fairly well.(22 MPa at 365 days at wl(c +fi = 0. these mixes are able to . Glass FE was ground in the laboratory and has a much flakier particle shape than glasses FG and FH. The most promising mixes with low-alkali cemnt are OOIFG and OO/FH.
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. I A A U P 1 1 1 1 .67 0.70 w +f 28 DAYS.64 0. .67 0. FIGURE 4. A A A .49 0. STRENGTH OVERVIEW -MODERATE-ALKALI CEMENT- 180 DAYS. 1 l l l l ' l l r n l / 0.52 0.10.61 w l ( c +f) 0.55 0.64 CEMENT- 0.6 1 0.49 0. STRENGTH OVERVIEW -MODERATE-FUCALI .9.58 0.55 0. 00100 CCFA -Trend Line A .70 FIGURE 4.40 .58 0. 00100 C+oo 0 CCFA CDIFA 5 M X k Q = 20 15 " m A : A - A A 0.
DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH -LOW-ALKALT MIXES The development of strength by the various mixes is shown for low-alkali cement in Figures 4. The relationship between tensile and compressive strengths was not substantially different for experimental glass mixes vs.14.12. while fly ash F2 develops a significant portion of its strength only after 180 days of curing. thus no further use was made of these results in the analysis and discussion. The low- alkali mixes with fine glass gradations produced a fracture in most cases comparable to the control concrete at similar ages. Figure 4. and for the Powdered Glass Series in . with numerous instances of coarse natural aggregate particle shearing. however. Low-alkali cement was also used in both the Field Trial and the Powdered Glass Series.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. The differing effect of the several different types of fly ashes is obvious on these plots.12. 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.3. The tensile strength data are included in the data compilation in the Appendix 4. on the other hand. At 365 days.13 and 4. while a m i x containing 20% fly ash F2 is shown in Figure 4. Fractured coarse glass aggregate particles were observed in compression tests at ages of 90. control mixes. .13. the kacture was along a very sharp failure plane in the fine glass mixes. 180 and 365 days. maintains a virtually constant slope (on a logarithmic-scaled plot) fiom 28 through 365 days.11 and 4. It is apparent that fly ash F1 develops its strength more quickly. The control concrete. Mixes containing no glass and 25% fly ash F1 or F2 have their respective strength development curves shown in Figure 4.15. for the Field TriaI in Figures 4.
while glass FH is fairly uniformly graded at approximately 1 mrn and contains much less fine material (4% finer than 200 pm). 20%/20%. HRWR FIGURE 4. OO/FG. as the fly ash induces a characteristic strength gain acceleration between 180 and 365 days.1 1. . OO/FH. DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH -LOW-ALKALI CEMENT -FINEGLASS GRADATIONS. but are again able to maintain a steeper slope than the 0%/25% fly ash mix.61 The superior performance of the mixes 00FG and 00/FH is again evident in Figure 4. . 55 50 45 h z 3 c $40 35 00 V) 3 30 25 20 15 10 100 Age (days) iI - - 24%/25%. despite its 20% fly ash content. their strength development shows different trends at later ages. 20%/20%. . 20%/20%. follow a similar pattern.1 1. the mixes with glasses FG and FH. they have a consistently steeper slope than either the 09610% controls or the 096125% control with fly ash. with m almost no increase in slope after 180 days. Furthermore. OO/FG. The primary difference between these two mixes is that glass FG is well-graded and contains considerable fine material (~25% finer than 200 pm). also containing 20% fly ash. OO/FG. though they start with somewhat lower strengths than the control concrete with HRWR. 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.
. The developmnt of strength of the field trial mixes.. .. DEVELOPMENT OF S M G I H . . . . . . suggesting that the hydration as influenced by fly ash may have been slowed down by the cooler fall weather several months after casting. . developing strength slightly more quickly than the fly ash control concrete up to 90 days.. .The other mixes shown in Figure 4. .. ..12. . ... .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. . . FA 24%/30%. Because . The trend for every mix is that the laboratory cylinders develop a greater fraction of their strength before 28 days. . This is to be expected because of the optimal curing conditions for the laboratory cylinders. . . . . is shown in Figure 4. . .. . .LOW-ALKALI CEMENT- COARSE GLASS GRADATIONS. . ...12. . .. 10 10 . . . .1 1 all show a pattern of starting at a fairly low strength. . shown in Figure 4.. . .. . .. . then slowing down and developing approximately in step with the fly ash from 90 to 365 days. . . show consistent strength development. 24%/25%.. . . . . . 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. .. .. . . .. FA. . . . . . both laboratory cylinders and core samples. . . This effect is greatest for the 0%/20% fly ash F2 mix. . .. . 100 1000 Age (days) F I G U R E 4. . ... . while the core samples develop a greater fraction of the strength after 28 days. .14 for the mixes with fly ash F3...
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. The strength development of the mixes in the Powdered Glass Series is shown in Figure 4.thls interaction will be discussed further in Chapter 5. 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. The control mixes with no glass aggregate exceed the strength of all of the other mixes by a wide margin.5%. None of the mixes in this series develop strength well. 5% and 20% mixes show both a peak and. while the 2. later. 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 .this effect is not as evident for any of the mixes containing glass aggregate. a trough fiom which then subsequently rise again. . all but the control and the 10% glass m i x show a peak at some point in the curve.15.
.FLY ASH F3 MIXES. DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH-F'IELDTRIAL.FIGURE 4.14.
19. 4.16 show considerable variability. The 0%/0% control mixes and mixes with fly ash but no glass in Figure 4.17. All of the mixes in these series with glass aggregate contain both coarse and fine glass aggregate.16. respectively.17.18 and 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. 4. Looking over the range of glass mixes in Figures 4.19. . and therefore much more slowly than the fly ash-only mixes shown in Figure 4. it may be noted that the mixes containing glass all develop strength more slowly than the control mixes. 4. 24%.Figures 4.18 and 4.DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH-MODERATE-ALKALI MIXES The development of strength is illustrated for moderate alkali cement with glass contents of 0%. 48% and 90% in.16.
.FIGURE 4. DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH-MODERATE-ALKALI CEMENT -48% GUSS.18.
. . . k mixes with only fine aggregate. . . .. .. . .. . . . . which does itself show a very substantial increase during that period. . CCEA +90%/35%. . .. . . that the ratio of 365 day strength to 7 day strength decreased Iiom about 1. . . 1 j - . .. . .. . CCEA -o.70 for a 0%/0% mix decreasing to 1. . . . . . for example.. . . . : : . .. . . . . . . CCEA . Our results are similar but less severe..12 display a marked difference in behavior compared to the Phase-I CAIFA and C W A mixes.. . . . ... . with strength development nearly equal to that of the control . c 90%/0%. . ~ h Phase-I. . . .. .. . I 1000 Age (days) FIGURE 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .19. . . 40 . . .. who noted that as gravel is replaced by coarse glass.. . . . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .OF STRENGTH-MODERATE-AWALJ CEhENT -90% GLASS. . 5 10 100 . . . .a difference which may be due either to the low-alkali cement or to the use of air entrainment in these mixes. .. . -0%10% O%/O% -O%/O% . .. .. .90%RO%. .. . . . .. ... .. . . . . . there is a gradual move fiom normal strength growth to no growth or even regression of strength as the percentage of glass increases. . CDEA 1 : .. .. . especially gradation 00/FG... . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . 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.. . . . .37 for a 90%/0% mix. ... .. .. . . . . DEVELOPMENT. . . . .. . He found. .. . .19 is sunilar to that found by Johnston (1974). . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . .. . . . . . . .. .87 with no glass to about 1. . .. CCEA +90%125%. . . . with a ratio of 1. . . . . . . . . . ..08 with 100% glass coarse aggregate. . . . ... ... . . . .. -+ 90%/30%.. .. .. .. The CE/FC mixes fiom Phase-IIin Figure 4.. ... . . . . .The pattern of strength deveiopmnt with coarse glass aggregate (mixes C W A ) in Figure 4. . .. . . . . .
20. 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. . but being Phase-I1 mixes.13 at glass contents of 20% to 24%. This separates the effects that are intrinsic to glass and fly ash fiom the effects of glass and fly ash on water demand.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. and the interaction between glass and fly ash evident fiom a comparison of the different curves displayed in Figure 4. display substantially better behavior in Figure 4.7 and 4. The OOEb mixes.10). The markedly non-linear behavior. with the order of increasing strength being 0% fly ash<(20%=25%=30%)<35%at 0% glass.87 and 1. with a consistent dip at the 24% and 36% aggregate levels with the coarse aggregate.20. thls would still appear in the strength relationship because the air content adjustment is based on separate control mixes).20. on the other hand.20. and back to 0%<20%<25%<30%<35% at 90% replacement of glass aggregate. with normalized strengths between 0. The CE/FC mixes have strengths 4 0 % higher than the CAFA mixes. There is a clear non-linear effect of glass on strength displayed in Figure 4. adjusted to 6% air content. An interaction with fly ash which changes for varying amounts of glass aggregate is also seen. Notice first that the strengths of the CAFA mixes show a large drop with as little as a 12% addition of glass. such as the mitigation of microstructural damage by ASR. suggests that there may be more than one distinct effect of glass aggregate that is contributing to loss of strength . If the air voids have an additional secondary effect. then rise slightly with additions of 48% and 90% glass. reversing to 35%<(30%=25%)<20%<0% at 36% glass. reach a minimum at 24% to 36% glass. to the trendline at the same w/(c+f)ratio (fiom Figures 4.this will be discussed at more length in Chapter 5.
61 and 1.21. 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.e.0% 15% 45% 60% 75% Glass Content (% of Total Aggregate) 30% 90% The effects of fly ash content and form are illustrated in Figure 4.7 and 4. fly ash F3.62. though there is a wide variation within each fly ash: fly ash F2 produces normalized strengths of 1.and 365-day results are included in this figure). . These strength results have been normalized to the trendlines in Figures 4.10. 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. i.12 while fly ash F3 produces normalized strengths of 0.90 and 0.
Field l'rial IO%/y%. RELATION TO POWDERED GLASS CONTENT The relation of strength to powdered glass content is presented in Figure 4. FA F3. therefore no adjustment for WIC variation is needed. it is more probable that the observed effect is due to an ASR reaction. but rather seems to reach an extreme value at 5% addition at all ages. 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. . FA F2 4 4 A A x x + o 0. Field O%/y%. o FIGURE 4. OOFI. or it may indicate an ASR reaction is taking place that is disrupting the concrete matrix and reducing the strength.O%/y%. CC/FA. Because the reduction in strength appears already with glass aggregate and no powdered glass addition. RELATION OF STRENGTH TO FLY &H CONTENT AND FORM.CEFC. 00100. OOIFG & OOIFH. FA F1 36%ly7o. O O F I . FA F1 24%Iy%. CAIFA. FA F I 24%1y%. 00100. -CEFC. CEIFC. FA F2 24%1y%.22.note that the entire Powdered Glass Series was conducted at a constant wlc ratio of 0.- . CA/FA. FA F3.2 1. Field 20%1y%.CCIFA. FA F I 36%1y%. Field 20%1y%. FA F I 48%/y%. CAIFA.43. FA F I 12%1y%. OOIFE & OOFG.40 0% 10% 20% 30% A 20%1y%. FA F I 90%1y70. this may indicate either that the addition of powdered glass impairs strength overall. FA F I 0%/0%. The strengths are normalized for air content according to the procedure described earlier . CAIFA. and because the reduction in strength does not increase with higher additions of powdered glass. FA FI Fly Ash Content (% of Cementitious) . FA F2. FA F3 13. OOFI.%/y%.
56 Days . Glass -. Glass -.24 for the glass mixes with fine glass only. Glass -. Glass -.56 Days 0 No Glass Aggr. w/o Powd.90 Days No Glass Aggr. w/o Powd. Glass -.5% between 10 cycles and 600 cycles.55 50 I h -10 a 45 w 4 - 20% Glass Aggr. 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. w/ & w/o Powd.. w/ & w/o Powd.20% Glass Aggr. 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. Glass -. w/ & w/o Powd. w/o Powd. 'then for the specimen to retain that stiffness nearly constantly through the entire test: the 0%/0% mix initially drops to 94.90 Days I t 0% 5% 1090 15% Powdered Glass Content (9% of Cement) 20% .28 Days 2090 Glass Aggr. . and maintains that through the remainder of the test. while the 0%/0% control with HRWR initially drops to 94% and loses only 2.28 Days o No Glass Aggr.23 for the glass mixes with both coarse and fine glass. and in Figure 4. There is no firm criterion of acceptable performance.5%.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.* -.
. H S - IL ..... . .... . .. HRWR - 24%/25%.. - 20%/20%. ........... ... ... . ... 00/FH. . .... ..-O%iO% ....... ...... . .......... ... .... ....... . .... .. ....... . OO/FG..... HRWR 20%/20%... 20%/20%... . ... ..... *0%/0%.. FkEEZE-THAW STIFFNESS DEGRADATION -FINEGLASS GRADATIONS .. MRWR ..100 Cycles ..... ...24.. .. > - .. .. 00/FE................ 85 10 100 1000 Cycles FIGURE 4......HRWR .. OO/FG.....
24)... the only mix showing a sirmlar pattern is the 12%/20% m i x .. then loses an additional 2% between 10 cycles and 350 cycles. .. .. In contrast..26.23)..... -o-- - 12%/20%. compared to degradations of 2% and none for the two FG mixes......... The h e glass gradations FG and FH..................... cE/Fc 20%/25%....which initially drops to 95%......C W C 36%/25%.. on the other hand (Figure 4. show degradations between 10 cycles and 600 cycles of 4% for gradation FH.. .. ... .....25 and 4........ the other coarse glass mixes lose between 9% (mix 20%/25%) and 22. 100 Cycles The weight degradation experienced by the test specimens over the course of the freeze-thaw testing is illustrated in Figures 4......CE/FC 20%/30%......... All of the prisms show a similar pattern. after an initial drop which is very similar to or even less than that exhibited by the control mixes. The FE gradation shows a degradation of 6...................... CWC . reflecting its hgh wl(c +A ratio and low strength.........Among the coarse glass mixes (Figure 4............... ....... with the differences appearing in the magnitude of loss rather than showing a distinctly different pattern ...5% (mix 24%/30%) from 10 cycles to 350 cycles.. respectively.5% between 10 cycles and 350 cycles.
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.
. Paste sloughed predominantly from the glass aggregate particles........ I 'b Control wlo Glass Aggr.. the Field Trial test sections have shown excellent durability to abrasion and freezing weather..... 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. 40% -- 4 20% Glass Aggr..... and the trend of increasing degradation with 10 ...5%. 0 i - 30% ..... ~n *... (A 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Powdered Glass Content (% of Cement) FIGURE 4.................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.. - Based on visual assessment..2.... 5 20% a - C I .. c c d e ............ were noticeably weaker than the face of the specimen after freeze-thaw exposure.. STIFFNESS LOSS BETWEEN 10 AND 350 CYCLES BY POWDERED GLASS CONTENT The trend which is seen in Figure 4......29 suggests an optimal powdered glass content of 1 ...I 0 ..... which had a higher mortar content because of the edge effect of aggregate paclung....... with subsequent sloughing of the glass particles themselves as the degradation continued............. Only a small amount of paste has been removed from the top ... The comers of the specimens.29.... ....... either h e or coarse...............
it is most clear at early ages (e. and the moderate-alkali.detected by monitoring the expansion of concrete prisms.33. 4.30.32 also show a pessimum effect with the low-alkali mixes. it appears at a glass content of 20% to 24% in thk case.. but is still somewhat evident even at an age of 1095 days.3 1 and 4.31. is evident in these figures with a pessimum content of 36% to 48% glass for the moderate-alkalimixes. Concrete prism expansions versus glass content at ages of 28. exposing the top layer of both natural and glass aggregates. They suggest that no absolute criteria may be established to differentiate acceptable fi-om unacceptable expansion during a long-term concrete prism test. the Field Trial mixes. Failure criteria have been defined at the various ages for the low-alkali mixes. however. 365. There is also a pessimum-like-effect in the strengths illustrated in Figure 4. with the lowest strengths being recorded at a glass content of 24 . this suggests that there may be some interaction between ASR and strength development with glass aggregate . The top layer of aggregate appears to remain well bonded in the pavement. respectively.g.surface. 4. wherein the expansion is a maximum at some intermediate glass content. The expected pessirnum behavior. Figures 4. Additional wear in the wheel tracks is minimal. the expansion of the 36% glass prisms is more than double that of the next highest prisms). the expansion of a known .mixes according to guidelines suggested by Rogers and Hooton (1991). 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 .30. 4. rather.32 and 4. 730 and 1095 days are summarized in Figures 4.this will be discussed in Chapter 5 as an interaction between glass and fly ash.20. at 28 days.36%. including the glass aggregate.
. .*. . . 20% FA Field. 30% FA Mod.. . . 15% FA Field. . . . . . . . #. . . . . . . . . . not slmply reduce it to a slightly lower level. .# . . .. . . . and if fly ash is effective in mitigating ASR it should substantially e h a t e expansion. . . . . . . . . 35% FA Mod-Alk Criterion 1 . . .- J L 7 7 : A o + 8 t 0% 12% 24% 36% 48% 60% 72% 84% 96% Glass Content (% of total aggregate) FIGURE 4. . . .NoFA Low.. . . . . . . 25% FA Field Trial Crirerior. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .: I --. . -o 0 Low.## . . . . . B . . . . Mod. . 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. .+-. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . 25% FA Mod. . .. . ....-.. . .. I .. # . . 'b.innocuous control aggregate without fly ash should be used. . . . .. . . # . . .# . .. . . 25% FA Low.'O%FA Mod. . . . . . 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. . . A margin of 0. . . . . .. . . . N o F A Mod. . . . . . . ..28 DAYS. . C . No FA Field. . . . 0 . . . .30Yo FA ' Low-Alk Criterion Field. . . . . . . .30. . . . . . . ---. . .005%over the i x at each age has been used as the criterion in this analysis.. . . . . CONCRETE PRISMEXPANSION BY GLASS CONTENT . . .r - . . 20% FA Low. . . . . - . . . . . . .. . . .
....... 35% FA Mod-Alh Cri~erion & . .. . ... ... . .... No FA Field. .. ..... ."46 o " .... E ..... . ............. .. .- ...... ... .... ..... ... ....... ......... .. .......... .. .. ...... . .. . ............ c ....... .. .. .. ..... 1.. .. ..... ...... .. ...... I 0% 1. ..... . .......... . .. ...+ ...30%FA + Mod. ....... .. .. ... ... ..A . .... . .. ... ..... ....... ... ... ..... ......... . ...... . ... . .. .. ..... .... . ... ............... ........ .. . . . ... ... .... ... ....... V .. No FA Low......................... .. ... ... 25% FA o Mod..... ....... o Mod... ...... .... .... ~ 9 ..... ..... ' 12% 24% 36% 48% 60% 72% 84% 96% Glass Content (7% of total aggregate) FIGURE 4. .... .. ..... . . ....... .. ..... ... ... ... .... .... ..... ... ........... . ... .. ...... . . ........... ... .25%FA . . ........ . . . b - Bc ~ o " . ... .. . ............. . .. I ' i " F ..... ...... 25% FA Field Trial Criterion o Mod. . ......Low-Alk Criterion ... . . . .......... 25% FA Low... . . . n ............ ..... ..... . .... ...-.... . ..... . . . .... .. . ..... ........ .. . ...... ..... ..... .... ............. . ... ... ... . . .......-6$.3 1...... ......25% FA .. . .... ..... . . ... ..... . . .. 20% FA A Field... . ... ........ .. ..... ....... .. ......... ... . ........ . .......... ..... .. .. ......... .......1000 ...... ... ... ..... .......... .. F-4 ................ .. .NoFA Low.... .. .. ... ... .. ........ . ............... .... . ........ ..... .... . ....-. ................... A ........... -" A LOW. .... ... .. ........... ..... .. ...20%FA loo .. ........... . .... .... . 9 2 c 0 ...... .. ... . .......... . .. .. I1 ...... 0.... .. .................. ... . ....... ... 20% FA A Mod.... N o F A T D I D A o Mod.. .. . ... .... ... - ...... . . . ' ' ' ' ' " ~ 1 " 12% 24% 36% 48% 60% 72% 84 % 96% Glass Content (% of total aggregate) FrGURE4. . ............ ... .... ..... .... .. ... . .............. .. . ........ ..... ...... .. . ...... ..... ... ...... ..... . . .......... ...... . ...... .. . . .. ... ...... .... .... .... ..... . . .... ... ....... ...... . ............ ..... ...... . .............. . 30% FA + Mod.. ... ........ ... .... .... .... ..... .......... ........ . Low.... > Low...... . ........... .. .. ........... ~ 1 0% V - I I s Mod. . t. ....... .......... .. .............32... ...... ........ .. .... . .... . .................. .... ............ ..20%FA A Low........... .......... 30% FA *Low-AlkCriterion Field..... .............. .... .. No FA o Mod. 30% FA .. .... . ............. .. .. ... ... ...... .. ........... ... ............ J .. . ......... . ...... . ..... 35% FA Mod-Alk Criterion ~ 1 ~ 8 b ::::::::::: ....... . e W + ........ ... ... 9... . . .......... .. .... ........ .. ....... .... .. C O N C R PRISM E ~ EXPANSION BY GLASS CONTENT ... ........ .. . . ... ....... . ..... . . 15% FA Field......... .. . :: 1:...... ............. " ..... ...... ..... . .... 20%FA ... ............ ... .... ....365 DAYS....... ... .................... .. ................. ... ......... ... ....... . . ....... .... ..... . . ......... .. . ..... ... .. ... ...... .... . ... ... .. . . . . ......... h 0 0 5 Low.. .. .......... .. ...... ... : ..... .. . . .. .. ........ .. ........ . ... CONCRETE PRISM EXPANSION BY GLASS CONTENT- 730 DAYS... . A Mod...... ....... ....... .. ............ .. .. . . ........... . .. .. ...... .... ...... ................ . . .. . . .... .... t 3 0 A - 100 C . ..
............. .... . D " ...... but are not able to completely mitigate ASR with coarse aggregate......................... ................ with mixes with fiom 12%/0% to 90%/0% exceeding their limit whlch is very near considerably................. ..................................... ........................ A pessirnurn phenomenon is clearly evident among the series of mixes with moderate-alkali cement.. ...................................... even with some fly ash............................... 25% FA ......... ......................20%FA . coarse glass mixes have reached an age of 1095 days.......................................... the overall expansion trends continue....... ......................................................... / ................ -Mod-Alk Criterion 0 D .............. The maximum reaction appears here at a pessirnum content of about 36%......................... .....................A+ ............... ................................ ..... ... ................... 0 ................ 35% FA ............. ........................... NO FA Mod....... ....................... .............. ....................................................................... the greatest expansion shifts to the mixes with 90% glass................................................................. ................................ particularly the 90%/20% mix.. ..........................with the 36%/0%mix showing the highest expansion at every age........................ ...................... no fly ash........................... ................. the lint........ .............. .......................................... indicating that the combination of low-alkali cement and air-entrainment do much to reduce ASR.................................... o MO~ 3................................ however.............................................. ............. I ... ........... ........... I A..........+ ........................... 72% 84% 0% 12% 24% 36% 48% 60% 96% Glass Content (% of total aggregate) FIGURE 4........................................DAYS................. ...................... CONCREIE PRISMEXPANSION BY GLASS CONTENT.......... Do t 0 .. ................................................... :::::::::::: A Mod..................... ......................... ...................... : ...... 0 % ~ ~...... ....... + Mod.................................... ... ......................... 0 A 1 ] ........... . 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..... As fly ash is introduced................................................................. and varying amounts of glass aggregate. and all of the 90%mixes exceeding their limit except 90%/30%...............................1095......... ......................... .......................... At thls age........ 0 Mod.............................33....................................................................81 Among the low-alkali mixes............................................................................... ................. .................................. : ................. Only the moderate-alkali....... ....................................................... ................................
it is difiicult to clearly differentiate the effects of glass gradations. fly ash type. as they are somewhat intermingled within the low-alkali and field trial series. cement alkali level. Tables 4.1. Overall.2. 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. and air entrainment. These mixes will be examined more closely in the next section to separate the effects of some of these variables.OK ---. Looking at expansion after 365 days (Figure 4. 4. 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 ---. '----' IS UNACCEFTABLE). Phase-LI and Field T@ prisms containing both glass and fly ash. respectively. meanwhile.31). 4.3 and 4. their is little variation in expansion between the Phase-I.730 and 1095 days. TABLE 4.The form and gradation of the glass.1.365.4 summarize the performance of the mixes relative to their respective criteria at ages of 28.---.OK OK 10% 20% 0% Gls Gls Gls OK 12% 20% 24% 36% Gls GIs Gls GIs . ASR PERFORMANCE AT 28 DAYS ('OK' IS ACCEPTABLE. does not appear to have a clear effect on the expansion.
3. '----'IS UNACCEPTABLE). ASR PERFORMANCE AT 365 DAYS ('OK' IS ACCEPTABLE.2.TABLE 4. ' Low-Alkali Mixes 0% 12% 20% 24% 36% Gls Gls Gls Gls GIs OK 0% OK ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- . '----' IS UNACCEFTABLE). 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.
The natural aggregate used in the research is itself slightly reactive. OK OK OK ---- I A C C E L E F X M ASR SERIES RESULTS Figure 4. '----' IS UNACCEPTABLE).12% criterion with a mix of 0% glass and 100% natural aggregate.50% glass aggregate -the pessimum content for this case -followed by a gradual decline with lower expansions.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. ASR PERFORMANCE AT 1095 DAYS ('OK' Moderate-Alkali Mixes I S ACCEPTABLE. As the proportion of glass used is increased. .12% has been used as a failure criterion. OK OK.4 times the 0. with results just below the 0.4. the expansion increases steadily to a maximum at 40% . but still 3 .12% criterion with a mix of 100% glass and 0% natural aggregate. An expansion at 14 days of 0.TABLE 4.
12% criterion. it may be seen that the amount of glass aggregate used does have a signiiicant effect on the results of the test . The effects of various mitigating admixtures are shown in Figure 4. with none of the combinations containing at least 20% admixture expanding beyond the 0. which shows the change in expansion as powdered glass or fly ash is added in various proportions. Mineral admixtures in proportions of ~ 2 0 % or greater provide excellent mitigation of ASR expansion.0% 20% 40 % 60% Glass Content (% of Total Aggr) 80% 100% FIGURE 4. A C C ~ T EASR D EXPANSION -GLASS rnNO M~IGATION. 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.40% glass aggregate produces approximately twice the expansion at any proportion of powdered glass.35.34.
....... ....0 ...... .......... .... . \ . .. 6 300 w - 1 1 ..400 E350 0 0 X .....\..... . ....--. . ......... ..... . .".. ..... .-...20% Glass Aggr.. POWDERED GLASS. ......... .. wffowd.... T .\ b-- ..... w/FA F3 - I 1 - \ .\... .. 0% 5% 15% 20% Powdered Glass Content (% of Cement) or Fly Ash Content (% of Total Cementitious) 10% 25% FIGURE 4...... ........ ............... ..... .. .... ...------___ I ...... 200 I[ ................ ........... ...... ... .-. . Glass ....... ...20% Glass Aggr... .............10 .... .\.... . .+ -20% Glass Aggr....I ........... .......... ...... -.... ........ ............. . ....... 100 % 150 c .. .. .. .... ...12%Expansion Criterion . ........ ..... . ... W ? 50 0 .......... .. . ....... 8 8 0 '5. . ..... .. . ... . ...... .. \ \ . ......... ... ......... .. wffowd......... ... - YL c c u . .. ........ ....... w/FA F2 ....0.. ... ....... ................ .... . .. ... .... " ' . .................-. ..... Glass ... ......... \ \ \ z250 d 4 40% Glass Aggr....... .... ...35.......a .... .. \"' t . ..- .......... .... .. . . ! ..... --.. I -...... : ..... .. .... ACCELER4?ED ASR EXPANSION -FLYASHES F2 AND F3.....
An interaction between fly ash and glass reduced the development of strength by fly ash in certain mixes. 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. 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 . STRENGTH A range of strength behavior was observed among the various mixes containing waste glass. The 20%/20% OOIFG mix was among the strongest overall. where present. consistently reduced the strength by as much as 40%. 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. freeze-thaw durability. Among i x seemed to be the optimal proportions. strength.ANALYSIS OF DATA AND DISCUSSION Glass aggregate produces significant effects across a broad spectrum of concrete properties. including the fresh mix properties. with strengths at 180 to 365 days from less than 10 MPa up to greater than 50 MPa.CHAPTER 5 . Several factors caused low strength among certain mixes: Sugar or other chemical contaminants. though the the coarse glass mixes. and ASR studied here.
This effect may reduce the strength of concrete mixes made from typical proportions of glass and fly ash by as much as 10% . Lower grade fly ash with high free carbon and sulfur trioxide contents. WI'C ratio of the resulting concrete. 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.20%. it cannot be accounted for by either a change in wlc ratio or air content. i. bleeding. especially in combination with glass aggregate with which it has several interactions. may be a factor limiting the strength of some concretes. The variation in strength due to this can range from a 25% strength loss to a 5% strength gain.. Satisfaction of this water demand increases the thereby producing a lower strength. This effect is probably due to a difference in paste-aggregate bond for a glass particle versus a natural aggregate particle. interfered with the actions of water reducers and air-entraining admixtures to the extent that the overall quality of the mix was reduced. and segregation severely hampered strength development. Possible reasons for this behavior are discussed in the next section.e. or a change in the behavior of the cementitious components of the mix. . its friability and relatively low resistance to aggregate fracture. 4) There is a strength loss intrinsic to the waste glass aggregate.88 consolidation that the combined effects of high wlc ratio. 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. 3) The strength of the glass aggregate itself.
the differencewas taken as the effect of the interaction.7 and 4. 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. 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.Chapter 5 are displayed to the nearest 1%. and the effect intrinsic to the glass aggregate. table and discussed in. The values in Table 5. as a fraction of the control strength. For purposes of comparison. strength effects shown in the . The intrinsic effect as defined here is primarily . The effect of water demand is calculated from the trendline displayed in Figures 4. 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.10.in Chapter 6 the conclusions are discussed with consideration for the precision achievable in practice. the effect of the interaction of glass on the strength development of fly ash. 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. . though in practice strength cannot be reproduced with that precision . The total effect then indicates how much the experimental mix falls short of the control strength.1 presents an overview of how the effects of glass aggregate on strength break down for several representative mixes. so that the three components sum to the total effect.to 12-month) strengths of the respective mixes. adjusted to a nominal air content of 6% as described at the beginning of Chapter 4. This total effect is then broken down in the three intermediate columns into the effect of water demand.Table 5. no other adjustments were made.3).1 have been developed as follows: The strengths given in the table (MPa) are the long-term (6.
with the fine glass (mixes OOIFG) exhibiting slightly lower demand than the coarse glass mixes. Conuol Control Expr.5 26.0 -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 5.1 11.2 22. 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.5 15.1.2 52. Effect Water Interaction Effect Strength Strength Mix Mix Demand B o n d ) (MPa) (MPa) ( 12%/0% CNFA O%/O% NoFA 39.4 53.2 39.5 52. .1 22. COMPONENTS OF STRENGTH EFFECTS.5 42.2 17.2 39.8 20. Total Effect of Effect of Lntrinsic Expr.5 42.1: The effects of water demand increase steadily with increasing glass content.5 42.assumed to reflect the bond between the glass aggregate and the cement matrix.2 39.0 9.2 42. TAEILE 5.9 23.4 45.5 42. as discussed above.
and so the microstructure is able to bridge over the glass aggregate particle and incorporate it into its structure. rather than the change in aggregate.150 pm thick) are of the same order of magnitude as the size of the glass aggregate particle itself. and flat interface that can produce a definite plane of weakness. indicating that the change in cement is most probably responsible for the difference. smooth. For the mixes that include low-alkali cement and air-entrainment (mixes CE/FC and OOJFG). 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. as will be discussed in the next section. though this may be due to other variables that were not included in the experimental design. freeze-thaw testing and exposure field trials have not been previously researched with waste glass aggregate. and increases slightly bemeen 12% and 36% glass before dropping to near zero for 90% glass. on the other hand. DURABILITY To the author's knowledge. even becoming positive for one of the mixes. the magnitude of this effect is much lower. and present a large.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.it is able to . are many times larger than the thickness of the interfacial zone. 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 . Thus this work is useful in demonstrating that the freeze-thaw durability of waste glass mixes is generally promising . The intrinsic effect is substantial at all glass contents with coarse glass and increases slightly with increasing glass content up to 90%. and in the analysis and conclusions that the intrinsic effect for this mix is assumed to be 4% follow. The intrinsic effect of fine-glass-only aggregate (OOLFG) is much smaller. The coarse glass aggregate particles. This effect correlates with a change in the glass form and gradation.
however. but acceptable for the glass aggregate. 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 . et al. Control mixes with no glass display slightly more stiffness degradation over 350 cycles of exposure than the OO/FG mixes. with an average weight loss of ~ 2 % compared to 51% for the control mixes. as has been detailed in Chapter 3 with regard to the fly ashes used in this research. which are most effective in mitigating ASR. . EFFECTS OF FLYASH Because fly ash will generally be necessary as part of a mix design with waste glass aggregate. - (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. Weight loss results are somewhat less promising over 350 cycles. are also much more variable than many of the higher grade Class C fly ashes. Several researchers. Based on visual assessment. including Cabrera. free carbon. Some of the Class F fly ashes commonly used in concrete production do not fall within the ASTM guidelines limiting S03.parameters such as water demand or demand for air-entraining admixture can vary by as much as a factor of two. the effects of fly ash on the concrete mix must be taken into account. 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. the field trial exposure test sections have little noticeable degradation due to either abrasion or freeze-thaw exposure. Durability under potential ASR attack will be discussed at length in its own section. especially because the Class F fly ashes. particle size distribution. and other critical parameters.match the performance of low d c ratio control concrete with optimal proportions of glass aggregate.
fly ash has a consistent effect on strength development.27 25. the effects of glass.07 11. many of the potential effects of glass aggregate are modified or masked by the effects of fly ash. the effects of fly ash. since the cost of washing waste glass aggregate may equal or exceed the cost of the raw glass aggregate itself. STRENGTHS rnWASHED VS. and the effects of interactions between them have been separated in Table 5.17 18.2 where the strength without washing is indicated as a fraction of the strength with washing. UNWASHED GLASS AGGREGATES.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 .08 45.42 79% 59% 56% 3 1. and other light components of the original form of the glass as packaging. or not.2. Washing glass aggregate before use has an overwhelming effect on strength. above and discussed more thoroughly in the next section.In combination with waste glass. Normally. Because this pattern can be modified by the presence of glass. as shown in Table 5. The effects of either removing these by washing. 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. it will typically include contaminants: paper. and the waste glass can even interact with and moddy the behavior of the fly ash itself. as well as sugar and other chemical or food contaminants.1. BEHAVIOR DURING PROCESSING AND IN FRESH CONCRETE AND W A T E R DEMAND As glass aggregate is received from a recycling plant. 5. plastic. followed by higher longterm strength. usually producing somewhat lower strengths initially. must be considered and its necessity must be clear before it is undertaken.
94 (compare gradations of glasses CA vs. These effects on water demand and workability affect strength as well. but there is some effect even with the optimal fine glass aggregates. AU of these effects are much more evident with coarse glass aggregate or poorly graded fine glass aggregate. The effect of the gradation of the glass aggregate on strength will be discussed below. which is the primary direct effect of a change in gradation. respectively). 3. because the wlc ratio must be adjusted to keep workability within a usable range. and FF vs. CB. with the finer gradations becoming more and more regular in their shape and losing .1. which differ substantially between natural and glass aggregates. FA vs. 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. Even after washing.3. 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. particularly since the large difference in strength between washed and unwashed glass aggregate is not accompanied by a significant difference in water demand. 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.2 and 3. however. FG in Figures 3. 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 . 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. The coarse glass retains the plate-like shape of the bottles from which it is derived. FB.
exhibited a very flaky particle shape due to the method of grinding used. but their higher water demand suggests that the mechanisms involved were similar. The flaky particles in the lab-ground aggregates (glass FD and FE) were too small to observe similar behavior visually. and the smooth surface texture of the glass coarse aggregate may simply aggravate this effect. glasses FD and FE. along with increased bleeding and segregation. it may consume this layer of CH and redeposit it as a stronger layer of CSH .some of their sharpest and most angular edges. 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 coarse glass pieces especially produced observable anomalous behavior in the fresh concrete. If a pozzolanic reaction then occurs. well-oriented CH crystals to form. with visible bleeding around the glass particles and extremely poor cohesion with the cement paste.1 through 1. this layer may be incorporated into the more fluid ASR gel which does not contribute to strength.r 5n m is generally quite regular (see Figure 1. This regular shape is not assured by the simple fact of the glass having a fine gradation. on the other hand. This tendency to collect bleed water at interfaces is a common cause of poor strength among concretes with poorly graded aggregates (Roberts 1989).an effect noted by Roberts (1989). however -the glass ground in the laboratory. Poorly shaped aggregates are generally known to produce this type of behavior. If ASR occurs. 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. 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.6). This possibility is supported by SEM images of the concrete samples in this . Glass aggregate that was crushed to less than ~1.
The effects of glass form and gradation on ASR will be discussed below. It will be necessary to conduct further . It is possible that powdered glass will provide the same effects in concrete that Class F fly ashes do. and fly ash vs. but current results are somewhat ambiguous. and the powdered glass produced slightly better workability than similarly graded fly ash. there may be physiochemical reasons for a smaller glass particle performing better than a larger one. sub-angular particles are far superior to larger.e. EFFECTS OF GLASS AGGREGATE GRADATION It is clear that smaller. GLASS EFFECTSOF POWDERED While waste glass in typical crushed sizes might replace sand as fine aggregate. to separate the effects of the particle shape from the effects of gradation . the fine glass produced approximately the same or slightly harsher workability than similar sand. flat and elongated particles. sharp edges. coarse glass.there seems to be a substantial correlation between a finer particle size and a more regular particle shape.research showing smooth. If glass aggregate has a distinctive effect on the development of the ionic double layer. the coarse glass produced substantially harsher workability than similarly graded gravel. however. powdered glass has possible uses similar to those for Class F fly ashes. this effect may change as an aggregate particle becomes smaller and more regular and has fewer distinctive. fine glass. sand vs. and its amorphous morphology is at least similar to the outer shell of most fly ashes. At the same time. gravel vs. i. It is difficult. powdered glass. It has a similar chemical composition. 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.
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. 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. It has been suggested that many of . This. it is possible that some ASR deterioration is taking place. and a somewhat finer gradation overall have probably liberated a much higher concentration of alkalis than that liberated by the fly ash. If powdered waste glass is used.research. These effects are probably due to the very low free carbon content of powdered glass compared to similarly graded Class F fly ashes.2. are ambiguous. The effects of powdered glass on strength. combined with the completely amorphous structure of glass compared to an amorphous layer surrounding a crystalline core for 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. though some of them resumed normal strength growth eventually. The demand for air-entraining admixture is likewise decreased slightly.5%) and then decreases gradually for supplements up to 20%. The likely cause of the differences between Class F fly ash and powdered glass are the alkali contents and the slightly different morphologies. The higher alkali content of the powdered glass. The causes of this behavior are unclear. Several of the test mixes lost strength at some point during their development. however. The demand for water increases only slightly when cement is supplemented with small amounts of powdered glass (1% . overwhelmed any ability of the powdered glass to mitigate the ASR. but within the experimental design used in this research. combined with the lower quantities of powdered glass used as a cement supplement rather than a cement replacement.
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. on the other hand. 1995) have examined this. since powdered waste glass is ground rather than being formed by precipitation. Several researchers (Monzb. 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. in some cases eliminating nearly all of the strength development expected from the fly ash itself. especially reduction of water demand.25% (see Table 5. This effect is most noticeable in those mixes that have a nearpessimum proportion of glass aggregate. but rather only on the overall strength developed. thereby reducing the strength of the concrete by as much as 20%. glass has an effect on the . 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). Figures 5. If glass were to have no effect on the pattern of strength development. et al..1 and 5.2 are presented to investigate this effect. 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.1 and 5. Each of the strengths in Figures 5.g. this alone might significantly change its effect on concrete. are largely attributable to the spherical shape resulting from the formation of fly ash by precipitation in air.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. however.the positive effects of fly ash.1 and associated discussion). If.
10 1000 Neither of the fore mentioned patterns are observed . With 35% fly ash (Figure 5. and the 12% 24% and 48% glass curves grouped together. while the curve for 0% glass is far above the rest. the pattern changes. The curve for 90% glass ends up far above the others. 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. what is observed for 20% fly ash (Figure 5.1. Because the effects of glass aggregate alone are already discounted.1) is that the curves for 24%.pattern of strength development.2). but with no interaction between glass and fly ash. 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. 36% and 48% glass nearly coincide. 100 Age (days) FIGURE 5. and the 0% .rather. in an overall order 36%<24%<48%<12%. with the curve for 12% glass somewhat below them and the 90% glass curve significantly above the others. DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTHBY GLASS CONTENT -20% FLYASH.
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.glass curve is again at the top. Noting that the effect of the glass alone is already discounted by the normalization. while use of 90% glass aggregate reduces it only moderately. but does so to a lesser degree at 90% replacement than at lower replacement levels. 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. it seems that the glass is again affecting the strength development by fly ash.
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). 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. and its production consumes fly ash which would otherwise react to form structural CSH gel. rather than a strengthening of the interface as CH crystals are replaced by CSH. smooth.out onto the over-pessimum portion of the ASR pessimum curve. 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. continuous layer of CH at the interface. which is able to be absorbed by the concrete matrix. 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. and thereby reduces the ASR deterioration. though the low-viscosity gel may still densify the matrix and reduce the permeability. further contributing to the loss in strength. . al. The effect on strength. because of the large. however. though weak. This decrease in strength development is counter to the hypothesis by some researchers that fly ash mitigates ASR by strengthening the concrete matrix. especially coarse glass aggregate. did provide some strength. et. 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). is that the gel thus developed by the fly ash is not able to contribute strength to the concrete. 1994). This effect may be compounded by glass aggregate. The alkali ions incorporated into the CSH at low C:S ratios may also expel ca2' ions from the gel (Qian.
indicating a loss of strength with increasing fly ash content .5.7 with several fly ash contents noted on the figure. where strength is presented at an age of 180 days and k normalized only according to wl(c +A. . CCIFA. FA F1 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 90%ly%. while the lines for 12% through 48% glass are negative.suggesting that the fly ash is not contributing as much. and to powdered glass content in Figure 5. RELATION OF STRENGTH TO FLY ASH CONTENT -MODERATE ALKALI MIXES.3. 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. FA F2 24%/y% Fine GIs. if at all.6. so the effect of the glass aggregate itself is still present.3. FA FI Fly Ash Content (% of Cementitious) FIGURE 5. to the type and content of fly ash in Figure 5. The water demand of mixes with high-range water reducer (HRWR) is related to glass content in Figure 5. rather than glass content. The important observation is that the fitted lines for 0% glass with fly ash F1 and F2 are similar and positive.4.The same interaction is also visible in Figure 5. 4 20%/y% Fine GIs. FA F2 Phase-I1 CEIFC. to strength with these glass contents.
5 times for 0% to 15% fly ash. ranging linearly up to 2.4 and 5.103 Comparing Figures 5.5. . glass aggregate is seen to have only a small effect on the airentraining admixture required .5 to 6 times the air-entraining admixture required for control concrete at 35% fly ash replacement.5 that both the type and content of fly ash have substantial effects on the admixture requirements. 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).Aggregate) FIGURE 5. for example. This may be seen by comparing. and is a result of the higher glass contents generally being accompanied by higher fly ash contents as well. % 50 0% 12% 24% 36% Glass Content (% of Total. The n effect upward trend with increasing glass content that is apparent in Figure 5. It is clear from Figure 5.4.4 is actually a of fly ash rather than glass. with typical increases from 1 to 2.most of the demand is clearly deriving from the fly ash. AIR-ENTRAINWG ADMIXTURE REQUIREDBY TYPE AND CONTENT OF GLASS AGGREGATE.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25 % Fly Ash Content (% of Total Cementitious) 30% FIGURE 5. I o 20% Glass Aggr No Glass <I 0 b I 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Powdered Glass Content (% of Cement) FIGURE 5.5. AIR-EI~IR~ING ADMIXTURE REQUIRED BY CONTENT OF POWDEREDGLASS. AIR-ENTRAINING ADMIXTURE REQUIRED BY TYPE AND CONTENT OF FLY ASH.6. .
there is a large effect of adding HRWR. Similar effects are noted when comparing the effects of HRWR on the various mixes (Figure 5.7. Because the powdered glass has an extremely low free carbon content. thus limiting demand . There is a slight beneficial effect at all levels of addition less than 20%. WATER DEMAND WITH AND WITHOUT HRWR BY GLASS CONTENT. This effect does not necessarily cause an insurmountable problem for the use of either glass aggregate or fly ash . 12% 24% Glass Content FIGURE 5. . while for mixes with either glass or fly ash. 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.6 shows the air-entraining admixture required by various amounts of powdered glass as a cement supplement.in contrast to the fly ashes used.it may simply limit the range of usable wlc ratios at a given HRWR dosage. or both. which have such a large demand due to their own free carbon content that any reducing effect due to workability enhancement is negligible. These mixes may require greater dosages of HRWR for significant effects to be observed. For mixes with no glass and no fly ash. there is only a small effect at the dosages of HRWR used.Figure 5.7).
PESSIMUM BEHAVIOR One of the defining characteristics of ASR. Either above or below this pessimum level. When used with moderate-alkali cement and no fly ash or other measures to mitigate the reaction. Pessimum behavior was observed for the glass aggregate studied in this research. and the amount of gel expansion that is able to be accommodated by the concrete matrix within a given time period . the expansion and Possible mechanisms whereby the deterioration are less than at the pessimum level. certain combinations of glass exceed allowable expansion criteria as early as 28 days after mixing. 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. the rate of the alkali-silica reaction and gel production. 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. pessimum phenomenon is expected to occur are summarized in Chapter 2. The mechanisms of ASR expansion and deterioration are complex and not known with certainty.probably influenced by the viscosity or other properties of the gel. but rather at some moderate level. A finer glass gradation . 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. and one which many other researchers have also observed. is what has become known as 'pessimum' behavior.L~LKALI-SILICA REACTIVITY AND MITIGATION R E A ~ ~ Waste glass is clearly highly alkali-silica reactive.
e. This is likely because opal is reactive because it is cryptocristalline.. 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. i. 20% fly ash provides the minimum expansion. 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 the coarse aggregate is relatively insignificant. . all of its silica structures are weakly held. has a crystalline or semicrystalline structure. i. the amount of fly ash required for minimum expansion increases with increasing glass content .reduces the pessimum proportion. EFFECTS OF FLY ASHON ASR In examining the expansion of ASR concrete prisms. while in the accelerated tests. while glass is reactive because it is amorphous. while for Beltane Opal it takes place throughout the volume of the aggregate and is independent of particle size. but there are no openings which particularly allow access to the particle interior (Gillott and Beddoes 1981). 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. at 12% glass. a pattern emerges when comparing mixes with various fly ash contents (Figure 5. Figg (1981) has observed that ASR is primarily a surface phenomenon for Pyrex glass aggregate.e.8): First. but with micropores in the structure which allow reactive species to penetrate. the lowest expansion is generally not found with the highest fly ash content. the pessimum amount was ~ 5 0 % . Second.at 0% glass.This may indicate that ASR with fine glass depends on the mortar fraction of the mix. The concrete prism tests with fine glass aggregate displayed pessimum behavior at ~ 2 5 % replacement of natural aggregate by glass.
. .................. ....... ......... .........-.....-................... possibly because of the very slightly amount of reactive aggregate present................ . b ............ ..... ... .... ..... ....-.... the moderate-alkali coarse glass series are shown to allow analysis at 1095 days.. ....................... .......... ... ......... ..... ............ . .... I I r .... ......... ............. and at 90% glass........ .............: ........... . ....-* ........ .... . ..... 48%/y%... \.................. ..... an age which the low-alkali mixes have not yet reached......__ -......... -Mod........... O%/y%.. ..... . ........ ................ ..... ..............---.. ..... ... ..................... ............. I& ..... ... ........................ ............. ............:.. CAEA...................... ..................... because it is beyond the pessirnum proportion of glass..... 90%/y%..... ...................... 30% fly ash provides the minimum expansion.......... ................... ....... .................... --.... ... .. .............. At high glass contents (90% glass aggregate)......... ................... 25% fly ash.. Note that this is not the pessimum effect........... . at 48% glass................. CAIFA............ ..... ... FA F1 -............ .................. FA F1 ............. ....... ..-.... ...........Mod............. glass is not as reactive........ .... .. but the others show this effect very clearly.......... The 0% glass series trend is not entirely clear.. . ................. ..................... ........... .... ..... ... -................... .............. which is a phenomenon wherein a variation in glass content produces a maximum expansion at some intermediate glass content........-..... ..._............ .. L ............................. " .......................... . . . ....__ -.......... .............................. Figure 4....... ................... .. 12%/y%........+ .. '*.............-..........-.............. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35 % Fly Ash Content (% of total cementitious) In Figure 5...... ......... ....... ................... ..... ...... ..... .. ..................... .... FA F1 -9Mod...0 ....--. but it is also evident that fly ash is not able to ......_ .................................. this is a minimum expansion at an intermediate (rather than a maximum)fly ash content.......... FA F1 ................20% fly ash.. ................ .8........... CCIFA.. ........ .................33 suggests that the ability of fly ash to mitigate ASR also varies with the amount of glass present......_ -Mod-Alk Criterion ...)' -.....................Mod. ' : : .... ...................... Rather.............
and using powdered glass in place of fly ash. Fly ash is the only mitigation measure which may be unequivocally recommended based on the results of this research. while fine glass . though the mixes at the pessimum glass content with adequate fly ash for mitigation are still below or only slightly above the criterion. using low-alkali cement. As a finer gradation is used.g. for a CA/FA mixture with an average glass particle size of 3 . several other possible mitigation schemes have been used in practice or in research in the past. this behavior must be taken into account when selecting aggregate proportions. particularly in the more variable mixing and exposure environments of field concrete. e. air-entrainment. use of LiOH or other alkali salts as admixtures. Judicious aggregate proportioning. the pessimum proportion drops. use of low-alkali cement. The results of using powdered glass are inconclusive . other measures provide insufficient assurance of mitigation. M~IGATION Besides using fly ash.109 limit reactions over the long term at these glass contents either. the pessimum proportion is about 36%.33) that by 1095 days.it may prove effective with further experimentation with a wider range of glass aggregate-powdered glass combinations.4 rnm. while the use of LiOH is beyond the scope of this research. but cannot be relied upon to consistently provide complete mitigation. Note (Figure 4. OFTEibU PROPORTIONS OF WASTE GLASS AGGREGATE AND FLYASH In light of the pessimum behavior of glass with regard to both ASR expansion and strength. and are reflected by some of the experimental mixes in this research: judicious proportion of natural and glass aggregate. all of the 90% glass mixes have exceeded the allowable expansion criterion. and air-entrainment show promise as partial solutions to ASR in this research.
Fly ash of appropriate gradation and quantity used to mitigate ASR. 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.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. A proportion of glass aggregate somewhat below the pessimum proportion for that gradation .5 . cements and other admixtures should be selected with the goal of minimizing the amount of fly ash necessary for ASR mitigation. Optimizing the glass gradations and proportions would thus require meeting the following: A fine. USEOF WASTE GLASS AGGREGA'IE Waste glass aggregate will generally be obtained from commercial municipal recyclers. possibly ~ 1 0 % . For the glasses FG and FI used in this research. and the condition and physical properties of the glass must be controlled to produce acceptable concrete. because the fly ash used to mitigate ASR will demand water while adding little to the strength of the concrete. Aggregates. such as Glass FG used in this study to replace the natural sand in the concrete mix design. a 15% to 20% replacement of aggregate with glass would be required.mixtures with average glass particle sizes of 0.1.0 mm have pessimum proportions around 24%. Higher than optimum proportions of fly ash produce somewhat higher expansion because of the ASR reactivity of the fly ash itself. . the optimum proportion of fly ash is ~20% of the total cementitious material.
The segregation and bleeding what have been observed as minor.The particle shape must approach that of a nearly cubic. This problem may be exacerbated by the washing process if care is not taken to avoid loss of fine material. or at least regular. The glass must be clean. though the effects of these parameters on the mix was not included in the scope of this research. It will generally be necessary to use water reducers to counter the water demand of even optimal glass aggregate. especially sugars. 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. Some crushing and processing methods produce severely uniformly graded aggregate. 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. Laboratory experience demonstrated that either of these particle shapes can be produced during glass processing. but several points may be noted: . though they are not as severe and have not been quantified. Other contaminants. sub-angular sand. also have an effect. Food or chemical contaminants. The glass must be well-graded and must be provided within a consistent gradation. 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. depending on the crushing method used. such as paper or plastic remnants. rather than flakes or plates. The strength of the glass aggregate and the composition of the glass are probably also significant.
al. Current results suggest that a fly ash with a moderate rather than a very fine gradation may be better. Several factors suggest that the unaccelerated concrete . fly ash alkali content. A moderate gradation may provide longer-lasting mitigation of ASR than a fine-gradation fly ash. the free carbon content of fly ash used with waste glass aggregate should be kept to a minimum. ASR TESTPROCEDURES While the accelerated mortar bar test (ASTM C1260) is gaining acceptance within the concrete industry. and is probably the best available screening test.The alkali content of the fly ash should be kept as low as possible. 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. therefore. et al.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. 1995b. but these effects are beyond the scope of this research. The gradation of the fly ash may affect the ability of the fly ash to mitigate ASR. its usability for the fundamental study of ASR is limited. but the results from trials with powdered waste glass and the experiences of other researchers (BCrub6. et. The SiOz. provided that the of larger particles does not drive up the available alkal~ and free carbon contents. The effects of fly ash on air-entraining and water reducer admixture requirements are exacerbated by the presence of glass aggregate. The interaction of fly ash gradation. as has been discussed above. with fly ashes near 5% being accepted only after trials. to reduce the additional admixture demand. 1989).
20% . If the reactive aggregate is in the fine aggregate fraction of the concrete. a larger dosage may be appropriate and might be useable without the airentrainment destabilization which is characteristic of a HRWR overdose. 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. The difference in the pessirnum proportion in the concrete prism tests (pessirnum at 36% - 48% with coarse and fine glass vs. 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% 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. 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. a concrete m aggregate. Particularly important is a consistent equivalence between aggregate proportions in the mortar bar and aggregate proportions in the corresponding concrete.prism test is still necessary at least as a supplement to ASTM C1260 when results beyond a screening evaluation are required. especially in combination. I is present in the coarse aggregate fraction of the concrete. displayed much smaller response to HRWR than the control mixes. For example. selected according to the manufacturer's instructions before the I-IRWR series began. . AREASREQUIRING FURTHER RESEARCH As this research was completed and the data analysis proceeded.
with powdered glass supplementing rather than replacing cement and used in fairly small quantities (1% . the powdered glass series could be repeated with powdered glass used as a cement replacement in proportions from 10% 40%. 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). 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.20% cement supplement). . According to this model. experimental trials might be made both with and without waste glass aggregate included as part of the mix. The powdered glass might be better modeled as similar to Class F fly ash. As powdered glass might be a useful outlet for waste glass recycling in and of itself.
and resistance to ASR deterioration at ages firom one month to three years. fly ash and fine powdered waste glass was included to aid application of the conclusions to pavement trials.SUMMARY. Evaluation of the experimental mixes included consideration of compressive strength. and (3) to determine the effects of waste glass aggregate and powdered waste glass on the strength and durability of concrete. results of others at the University of Wisconsin. and other researchers' published results were used to synthesize conclusions about the processes and mechanisms of ASR and strength development in glasdfly ash concrete. . and experimental work conducted by the author. Some study of the interactions between the experimental materials and air-entraining admixtures. 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.CHAPTER 6 . The performance of glasdfly ash concrete was evaluated. (2) to document the alkali-silica reactivity of waste glass aggregate and determine means of mitigating this ASR. water-reducing admixtures. fieezelthaw resistance.
The results obtained with various gla~ contents points to ASR as the likely cause of the interaction. The effects of glass aggregate on strength have been be divided into three catagories: 1. 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. leaving instead a weaker interface devoid of both CH crystals and CSH gel. Finally. with the fine glass mixes exhibiting slightly lower demand than the coarse glass mixes. Glass aggregate reduces the strength developed by fly ash in the cementlfly ash m i x in situations in which ASR is active. Thus rather than form structural CSH gel.e. 3.STRENGTH Strength has been used in this research as the primary measure of the effects of glass aggregate on concrete. it cannot be accounted for by either a change in wlc ratio or air content. The range of strengths observed were very broad . i. or a change in the behavior of the . there is a strength loss intrinsic to the glass aggregate.at 180 to 365 days ranging from less than 10 MPa up to greater than 50 MPa. In the high-alkali ASR environment. reducing the strength of concrete mixes made from typical proportions of glass and fly ash by as much as 25%. Satisfaction of this water demand increases the wlc ratio of the concrete. 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. thereby resulting in a lower strength.. the low C:S ratio gel formed by fly ash becomes an alkali-CSH gel of low viscosity. 2. This effect increases steadily with increasing glass content.
The contribution of each of these effect for several representative mixes was presented in. and so the microstructure is able to bridge over the fine glass aggregate particle and incorporate it into its structure.. Mod-Alk Cement 2 -40% 0 Interaction. CNFA Intrinsic Effect. on the other hand.. OO/FG A 5. Low-Alk Cement 3 -50% .1.150 pm thick) are of the same order of magnitude as the size of the glass aggregate particle itself. a natural aggregate particle. and can amount to anything from a 25% strength loss to a 5% strength gain. This effect primarily reflects a change in the glass form and gradation. CNFA & Mod-Alk + Total Effect. Table 5. The coarse glass aggregate particles. OOFG Interaction. and is illustrated graphically in Figure 6.Water Demand. CAIFA & CE/FC . CAEA & CEFC Glass Content (% of Total Aggr. The relatively good performance of fine glass compared to coarse glass aggregate is probabIy because the dimensions of the interfacial microstructure (-50 .Intrinsic Effect. U H 9) T o t a l Effect.1..10% CA -20% o -30% W Intrinsic Effect.. smooth. 10% ater Demand. CEJFC 640% (d -70% Interaction. This effect is probably due to a difference in pasteaggregate bond for a glass particle vs. 5 U 0% A b . Mod-Alk Cement -80% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90 . Low-Alk. are many times larger than the thickness of the interfacial zone and present a large. CNFA & C E R Water Demand.cementitious components of the mix. and flat interface which can produce a definite plane of weakness..) .
the loss due to water demand may be reduced from =lo% (with glasses CAEA and CEIFC) to about 0% .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 . Also illustrated in Figure 6. 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% . By using low-alkali rather than moderate-alkali cement as well. the loss due to the to -5%. DURABILITY The freeze-thaw durability of concrete with glass aggregate is promising. and the loss due to the intrinsic effect may likewise be reduced from =30% (with glass C M A ) to about 0% .Figure 6. while the field trial exposure tests sections had little noticeable degradation due to either abrasion or freeze-thaw exposure.24% of the total aggregate. 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% .1.a loss in strength ranging from 50% with 12% glass up to 80% with 90% glass. 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. . With optimal proportions of glass aggregate it is possible to match the performance of low wlc ratio control concrete in accelerated freeze-thaw testing.5%.24% to a loss of about 0% to 15%. however.5%.
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. either with or without waste glass aggregate.48% of total aggregate with coarse glass vs. Powdered glass as a cement supplement has only slight effects on water demand and air-entraining admixture requirements. as a cement supplement at low (1% . possibly because ASR deterioration took place beyond the ability of the powdered glass to mitigate. When used with moderate-alkali cement and no fly ash or other measures to mitigate the reaction.20%) addition levels. In this research.e.e. For 90% glass aggregate no amount of fly ash 535% replacement of cement was able to mitigate ASR. certain combinations of glass exceed allowable expansion criteria as early as 28 days after mixing. as a cement replacement at levels of 10% . . i. At proportions of 12% . but based on the subsequently observed behavior it appears that powdered glass might be better modeled as similar to Class F fly ash. 20% .119 ASR REACTIVITY Waste glass is clearly highly alkali-silica reactive. The strength results are ambiguous. Observations that the pessimum content varies with glass gradation (pessimum at 36% .40% of the total cementitious materials. powdered glass was used in a manner analogous to silica fume. its has potential for use as a mineral admixture. i.48% glass aggregate it was found that some proportion of fly ash reliably mitigates ASR.24% of total aggregate with fine glass vs. 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.
to ~ 9 5 % at 180 days. poor surface characteristics. This proportion maximizes the use of glass while remaining within the range of glass contents in . which is able to be absorbed by the concrete matrix. Glass coarser than about 1. 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. changes ASR gel development from a few large pockets of viscous gel to many more small pockets of fluid gel.5 mm produces poor strength when used as aggregate. 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. This. A glass gradation between 75 pm and ~ 1 . However. and to ~ 1 0 0 % of the strength of the control at 365 days. due to its extremely poor shape. At 28 days the strength rises to ~ 8 5 % of the strength of the control. For mixes which are problematic but are already beyond the pessimum proportion. fly ash does not have much of an effect other than possibly to delay ASR slightly. rnm 5 was found to produce strengths sirmlar to control concrete at comparable W/(C +fi ratios.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. 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). To design an effective mix with glass aggregate. and high friability. a proportion of glass aggregate slightly less than the pessimum proportion seems optimal. in terms of strength and ASR mitigation. 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.
Low-alkali cement and air-entrainment should still be used whenever possible in the design of a m i x with glass aggregate. an ash with an alkali content near 5% should definitely be evaluated in test trials before use. Other procedures. In addition. however. were found to be only partially effective. The glass must be clean. use of low-alkali cement and use of air-entrainment. in particular judicious aggregate proportioning. rather than flakes or plates. Fly ash should be used in proportions of =lo% to 20% of the total cementitious material. Glass aggregate is likely to demand greater quantities of water reducer. The free carbon content should also be kept as low as possible to minimize interaction with water reducers and air-entraining admixtures. The glass must be well graded. Care must be taken that the quantity of water reducer is tailored to the glass aggregate mix. Use of fly ash was the only procedure found to be consistently effective in mitigation of ASR.which fly ash can effectively mitigate ASR. . Special care is required in the crushing of glass aggregate to satisfy this. A 5% available alkali content is a reasonable limit. especially sugars. free of food or chemical contaminants. sub-angular sand. however. which will require some care in the crushing and washing operations. 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. the following characteristics will be required: the particle shape must approach that of regular. It will generally be necessary to use water reducers with glass aggregate to reduce the water demand for workability. while at the same time overuse might aggravate glass' slight tendency toward bleeding and segregation. 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.
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. 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. strength cores. The Field Trial test sections. at an age of =18 months. show performance of parallel laboratory cylinders. .
Philadelphia. 1994 Annual Book of ASTM Standards. 84(2). Standard Test Method for Total Moisture Content of Aggregate by Drying C617-87. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens C42-90. Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method C260-86. Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete C496-90. Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate C128-93. Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate C136-92. Section 4: Construction. 04.02. American Society for Testing and Materials (1994). C3 1-91. 158-166. Standard Specification for Air-Entraining Admixtures for Concrete C289-87. Standard Test Method for Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete C127-88. and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete C 143-90a. Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens (2566-89. Standard Specification for Apparatus for Use in Measurement of Length Change of Hardened Cement Paste. Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Cement Aggregate Combinations (Mortar-Bar Method) C231-91b. Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory C215-85. Mortar and Concrete . Standard Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregate C138-92. Longitudinal and Torsional Frequencies of Concrete Specimens C227-90. Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Field C39-86. Standard Test Method for Fundamental Transverse. Standard Test Method for Potential Reactivity of Aggregates (Chemical Method) C490-93a. "Silica Fume in Concrete. Yield." ACI Materials Journal. C494-90. Standard Practice for Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens . Standard Test Method for Unit Weight. Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete C192-90a. Vol.ACI Committee 226 (1987).
M. (1989). "Phase Equilibria and Cement Hydration. (1990). Concrete and Aggregates. J. G. Slag. G. "Evaluation of the Properties of British Pulverized Fuel Ashes and Their Influence on the Strength of Concrete. J. A. (1986). and Fox. 1. Mikulic. Part 7: Modelling of Expansion.. 73-93. 277-284. 31(107). 24(2). BkruM.. Brown. 20(2). A. 1. E. Standard Practice for Mechanical Mixing of Hydraulic Cement Pastes and Mortars of Plastic Consistency Babu. A. Madrid. American Society for Testing and Materials (1993). C305-91. Philadelphia." Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Fly Ash. R. 177-192..947-972. "Determining Concrete Strength by Using Small-Diameter Cores. Milwaukee. Plowman.C618-93. J. Hopkins. 17(1). M. 91-98. (1995b).. (1979)." Proceedings of the Katherine and Bryant Mather International Conference on Concrete Durability. K. Woolley. (1987). Silica Fume. Standard Test Method for Potentla1 Alkali Reactivity of Aggregates (Mortar-Bar Method). N. D. C. "Early Strength Behaviour of Fly Ash Concretes.. Slag andNatura1 Pouolans in Concrete. J. C. Lee. Carles-Gibergues... (1995a). G. Silica Fume.. Duchesne. V.01. Standard Test Method for Rebound Number of Hardened Concrete C1260-94. '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." Material Science of Concrete I. 115-144. and Chouinard. D.. W." Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Fly Ash. J. S. C666-92. "Influence of Particle Size Distribution on the Effectiveness of Type-F Fly Ash in Suppressing Expansion Due to Alkali-Silica Reactivity. Standard Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing C805-85." Magazine of Concrete Research. H." Cement and Concrete Research. S. R. 04. and Ukraincik. and Christensen. BtruM. 'Theoretical Aspect and Methods of Testing Concrete Resistance to Freezing and Deicing Chemicals. 285-290. 26-34. D. American Ceramic Society. Shaw. Chatterji. '~uchesne. "Studies of Alkali-Silica Reaction.. and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete. Cabrera. P.. and Rao. Bungey. Bjegovic. P. . Standard Specification for Fly Ash and Raw or Calcinated Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Portland Cement Concrete. Section 4: Construction." Cement. Vol. J. G. P. (1994). 1." Cement and Concrete Research. 1993 Annual Book of ASTM Standards. and Naproux. H.
"Study of the Alkah-Aggregate Reaction on Concrete Prisms. Lawrence Lowlands (Quebec. Fraay." Cement and Concrete Research. Bijen.. "Reaction Between Cement and Artificial Glass in Concrete. R. J. 5. M. and de la Cruz. and Cramer. J. Duchesne. M. 89-299. de la Cruz. Letter to Jim Perry." Cement and Concrete Research. Duchesne. "Reaction of Fly Ash in Concrete. Wisconsin Department o f Transportation. (1992). S. W. V. Rock River Generating Station. Class F Fly Ash Analysis Report. A. (1981). R. M. and Habita. (1991). Iowa. M. (1987). de la Cruz." a Proposal for Research Work.'The Effectiveness of Supplementary Cementing Materials in Suppressing Expansion Due to ASR: Another Look at the Reaction Mechanism. (1994). 235-246. (1975). N.Chatterji. Y. 97. F. 'Waste Glass as an Aggregate for Concrete." a Proposal for Research Work. 177-183. (1989). J. Fournier." Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete. A. 19(2). E. Part 5: Verification of a Newly Proposed Reaction Mechanism" Cement and Concrete Research. Curtil. 24(3). D. Part 1: Concrete Expansion and Portlandite Depletion. M. "Application of the NBRI Accelerated Mortar Bar Test to Siliceous Carbonate Aggregates Produced in the St. and BCruM. (1994)." Lombard. R. "A Review of Alkali-Silica Reaction and Expansion Mechanism: Alkalis in Cement and Concrete Pore Solutions. "Waste Glass as an Aggregate for Concrete-Phase11. J. Figg. V. Cape Town... (1994). G. M. University of Wisconsin-Madison. (1994a). A. A." Cement and Concrete Research. College of Engineering. and BCruM. A Critical Examination. L." College of Engineering. and BCruM. M. University of Wisconsin-Madison. A. Iowa Department of Transportation. ." ACZ Materials Journal. S. 'The Effectiveness of Supplementary Cementing Materials in Suppressing Expansion Due to ASR: Another Look at the Reaction Mechanism. Commercial Testing & Engineering Co. 329-346. M. (1989). "Interim Report and Synopsis on Glass in Concrete Sidewalk Demonstration Project. (1989)." Cement and Concrete Research. and B6ruM. Part 2: Pore Solution Chemistry. Diamond. College of Engineering." Cement and Concrete Research. B. IL." Cement and Concrete Research. Duchesne. "Use of the NBRI Accelerated Test to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Mineral Admixtures in Preventing the Alkali-Silica Reaction. 473-478. 221-230.. 91(3). S. and Cramer. M. S. A. V. Arnes. Canada). Dubberke. R. Taulow. W. and Jensen. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Davies. National Building Research Institute. (1994~). and Oberholster. 24(1).. and de Haan. 19(2). Cramer. (1994b). Part 1: Influence of Various Parameters on the Test Results. A. 21(5). S. 73-82. M. "Available Alkalies fkom Supplementary Cementing Materials. 'Wisconsin Power & Light Co. J. 24(2). L. (1991a). 853-862." Cement and Concrete Research. "Studies of Alkali-Silica Reaction. 17(1).107.
D. S. T. A." Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Fly Ash. Alkli-Silica Reaction in Concrete. Gillott. "Continuing Studies of Alkali-Aggregate Reactions in Concrete. and Wang. 2(5)." Chemistry and Industry. "Laboratory Report." Cement and Concrete Research. 403-4 15." An Independent Study Report prepared in partial fulfillment of the Master of Science Degree. 'Nucleation and Pozzolanic Factors in Strength Development of Class F Fly Ash Concrete. N. (1991). S. E. E. Jones. and Bentur.. H. N." Magazine of Concrete Research. Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures. 2 15-223. 90(2).. J. (1993). Kobayashi. K (1993). Hozumi. Mason City. "New Interpretation of Alkali-Silica Reaction and Expansion Mechanisms in Concrete. Gillott. T. "Pilot Study on the Effects of Waste Glass Aggregate on Portland Cement Concrete." Cement and Concrete Research. "Waste Glass as Coarse Aggregate for Concrete." International Journal of Composites and Lightweight Concrete. (1988). 117-121. 962-972." Alpena Plant.. Cape Town. D. 344-350. W. and Banahene. S. S." Mason City Plant. (1993). "Alkali-Silica Reactivity: An Overview of a Concrete Durability Problem". D. (1986a). 357-375. P. Hobbs. C. and Natural Pouolans in Concrete. Michigan. Silica Fume. "Chemical Treatments and Additives for Controlling Alkali Reactivity. (1988). (1993). (1981). M. K. 'The Influence of Microfillers on Enhancement of Concrete Strength. 191-205. M. Lane. Norway. R. Hobbs. "Correlation between Pore Solution Composition and Alkali-Silica Expansion of Mortars Containing Various Fly Ashes and Blast Furnace Slags. (1988). D. 23(4).Gaudette. J. and Beddoes. and Abou-Zeid. Thomas Telford. 15. Goldman. and Yanagida. Iowa. 973-980. Southfield. "Cement Mill Test Report.21-26. Y. M. K. Nakano. Portland Cement Association. Lafarge Corporation (1991). N. (1988). 10(4). Kosrnatka." Cement and Concrete Composites. (2). S. . "Deleterious Expansion of Concrete Due to Alkali-Silica Reaction: Lnnuence of PFA and Slag. University of Wisconsin-Madison." Journal of Testing and Evaluution. (1989). J. 13th Edition. 38(137). 6(3)." Proceedings of the Conference on Alkli-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete. Kawamura. London." ACI Materials Journal. P." Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. P. A. H. 40-44. "Study on the Effect of the Quality of Fly Ash for Controlling Alkali-Aggregate Reactions. (1974). A. Khedr. Johnston. "Characteristics of Silica Fume Concrete. Gopalan. Holnam (1993). W. Hudec. C. (1993). and Takernoto. "Improved Control of Alkali-Silica Reaction by Combined Use of Admixtures. W. National Building Research Institute. (1994). Slag. T. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Trondheim. 23(4). and Panarese.
14. Guo. Qian. P.. Lan. 127-161. (1992). J.to 3 x 6. "Reduction in Mortar and Concrete Expansion with Reactive Aggregates Due to Alkali Leaching. (1981). 13(1). M. A. Silica Fume. Rogers. Mehta.. H. MA. "Pozzolanic and Cementitious By-Products in Concrete-Another Look. K L. f Concrete I. Peris-Mora. "It's Time for a Change fkom 6 x 12. 'Theoretical and Practical Research on the Alkali-Silica Reaction." Cement and Concrete Research. Milwaukee." ACI Materials Journal. U. Schmidt. Pay& J. (1987). and Saia. and OH Ions in Pore Structure Caused by Acidic Action of Mineral Admixture Particles in Matrix. Part 11: Retardation of the Transport of Na. (1991). Norway." ACI Materials Journal. and Hooton. Trondheim. M. Pay$ J. D." Proceedigs o f the Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete. Neville. " M e c h c a l Treatment of Fly Ashes: Strength Development and Workability of Mortars Containing Ground Fly Ashes. (1994). A.Concrete Microstructural Evolution. . C. F. 197-222. 24(4). Regourd. (1989)." Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete." Cement and Concrete Composites. Cape Town. Cylinders. Hornain. 24(7). (1989).in. A. 42-49. H. 'The 'Pessimum' Effect in an Accelerated Mortar Bar Test Using 1M NaOH Solution at 80°C. I.. E. Monz6. Nasser. Ludwig. (1981). K W. 1-43." Cement and Concrete Research. American Ceramic Society. "Influence of the Amount of Mixing Water on the Alkali-Silica Reaction. M. K. and Poitevin. and Peris-Mora. 60. "Microsilica in Concrete. (1963). Shayan.. and Natural Pouolans in Concrete. (1989). "A Preliminary Study of Fy Ash Granulometric Influence on Mortar Strength. and Al-Maneseer. 3rd Ed. 79 1-796. 1327-1334. 1235-1236. (1995). L. (1994)." Material Science o American Ceramic Society. Pitrnan.. (1981). 2 13-216. and Natural Pouolans in Concrete. P. and Borrachero. R. W. K. A. Cape Town. Scrivener.339-353.. Slag. A. 'The Microstructure of Concrete. A." Cement.." Proceedings o f the Third International Conference on Fly Ash. National Building Research Institute.Lenzner. M. Cape Town." Proceedings o f the Fifth International Conference on Fly Ash. H." Proceedings o f the Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete. National Building Research Institute. Concrete and Aggregates. D.249-255. and Tang. "Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Tests on Glass Used for Exposed Aggregate Wall Panel Work. 1. "Mechanism of Mineral Admixture Suppressing Alkali-Silica Reaction. X. C. Slag. Properties o f Concrete." Material Science o f Concrete I. (1981). 'The Alkali-Aggregate Reaction ... E. Silica Fume. Monz6. J. R. 84(3). Marshfield. V. Roberts.
and Han. Economics. S." An Independent Study Report prepared in partial fklfilknent of the Master of Science Degree.07(7)(a). and Okarnoto. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Wisconsin Electric Power Company (1993)." Rock River-Blackhawk Generating Station. (1992). Table 373.07(3)(d). State of Wisconsin (1989). Strategic Highway Research Program. 1989 Wisconsin Act 335. 4(4). 377-385. Generation and Recovery of Selected Materials in Municipal Solid Waste: 1960 to 1990. "Fly Ash Analysis. "Results of Analysis of Columbia Generating Station Fly Ash Units I & 2.. WI. p.128 Stark. 1 13th Edition Table 372.. Sheboygan. Warzyn Laboratory (199la)." Madison. B. 227. Wisconsin Power and Light Company (1994). (1987). and Disposal: 1969 to 1990. Sections: 159. S. Virnawala. Xu. f Tang. 'Fly Ash Analysis. Z. P. and Statistical Administration. P. 227. Department of Civil Engineering. Eliminating or Minimizing Alkali-Silica Reactivity. Standard Specification for Road and Bridge Construction. "Alkali Reactivity of Glass Aggregate. 159. Beloit. Department of Transportation. (1993). "1989 Senate Bill 30W." Durability o Building Materials." The National Data Book. "Statistical Abstract of the United States.. Washington. WI. D. "Results of Analysis of Rock River Generating Station Cyclone Fly Ash Units 1 & 2. Warzyn Laboratory (199 lb).97(4)(d)and 159. Bureau of the Census (1993). U. 34. D. M. Recovery. Minicipal Solid Waste Generation. 1993. Department of Commerce. WI. WI." Edgewater Units 3 & 4. pp." Madison. . Morgan. pp. ''Expansion of Glass-Containing Concrete and an Introduction to the Alkali-Silica Reaction.
90 -- Fe203 so3 CaO MgO Moisture Content Loss on Ignition Na2O K20 Total Alk.6 4.8 2.15 3. Class c3 Fly Ash LOW-~lkali' ~od-Mkali2 Cement Cement 9 6 by Weight SiOz N203 20.50 3.7 2.2 0.TABLE A3.1. (1991) Warzyn (1991a) .7 2.7 62. CEMENT AND POWDERED GLASS CHARACTERISTICS.Na20 Specific Gravity -- 0.10 0.43 1 Holnam Cement Corp.1.15 2. as. (1993) LaFarge Corp.
20 4.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 37.4 = 16 = 2.05 0.28 0.33 2.0 = 1.36 2.37 1.43 1.64 0.10 3.7 = 1.36 3.4 -- 0.15 2.19 5.37 0.6 = 0.33 0.44 31.15 ACI Committee 226 (1987a) Typical composition of container glass from Figg (198 1) W & L (1991) 'W & L (1994) WEPCO (1994) .18 1.30 0.05 -= 15 = 0.10 15.02 39.42 Fez03 CaO so3 p205 Moisture Content Loss on Ignition Na20 K20 Total Alkalis as Na20 Specific Gravity -= 0.72 0.32 2.48 1.35 2.79 2.
001 0.01 Particle Size (mm) FIGURE A3. .1.1. GRADATIONS OF CEMENTS. FLYASHES.0. POWDERED GLASS AND SILICA FUME.
+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 .2.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 A3.1. VARIABLE PARAMETERS OF THE GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES.
97 98.89 90. +f) F1/30% None None F1/35% F1/20% F1/25% F 1120% F1/30% F1/35% F1/25% 86.99. 88. 96. 100.93 94.1.TABLE A3. 87. 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.2. 92.101 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 . 91.95.
2. 128. 115. 112.1. 150. 113 114. 104. 139 140. 135. 119. 127. 133 134. 145 146. 136 137. 120. 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 . 109 110. 125 126. 138. 111. 116. 148 149. 131. 147. 142 143. 123. 132.121 122. 117 118. 129 130. No No No No No No No No No No 102.TABLE A3. VARIABLE PARAMETERS OF THE GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES. 108. 141. 103.105 106. 107. 124.(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. 144.
2.TABLE A3.1. Cement Type Low Low Low WR Type None None High High High High High None High Med High High Air Entrnd. (CONTINUED) Batch(s) Fine Glass Type/ % of Total Aggr Coarse Glass Type/ % of Total Aggr Fly Ash Type / % of Total (C . VARAIBLE PARAMETERS OF THE GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES. +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 .
Section Fine Glass Type / % of Total Aggr.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. 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% . VARIABLE PARAMETERS OF THE POWDERED GLASS SERIES. VARIABLE PARAMEERS OF THE FIELDTRIAL.2.3.TABLE A3.2.
3.1. 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% .VARIABLE PARAMETERS OF THE ACCELERATED ASR EXPANSION MORTAR MIXES TABLE A3. VARAIBLE PARAMETERS OF THE ACCELERATED ASR EXPANSION SERIES.
43 0. VARAIBLE PARAMETERS OF THE ACCELERATED ASR EXPANSION SERIES.43 0.3.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 .43 0.43 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% 2.5% 5% 10% 20% 1% 2.TABLE A3.1.43 0.5% 5% 10% 20% wl(c +f) 0.
.1 MIX AND FRESH CONCRETE RESULTS TABLE 4. Air Content ( m ~ m ~ / l~% ir) AE Admx.1. GLASS-FLY ASH SERIES MIX AND FRESHCONCRETE RESULTS. Batch(s) WI(C +f) (mm) Slump (kg/m3) Unit Wt.APPENDIX4.1.
TABLE A4. GLAss-FL.1.~'ASHSERIES MIX AND FRESH C O N CRESULTS. ~ (co-1 WI(C +fi Batch(s) (mm> Slump (kg/m3> Unit Wt. .1. Air Content (mvrn3/l% ~ir) AE Admx.
1. ( c o r n ) WI(C +fi (mm> Slump (kg/m3> Unit Wt.TABLE A4. . Air Content (m~m~/l '0) % AE Admx.1. Batch(s) GLASS-FLY ASH SERIES MIX AND FFESH CONCRE~E RESULTS.
.0% (mum3/l% ~ i r > AE A h . Section 1 wl(c +J) 0. A4.2. 2294 Air Content 7.3. Air Content (mum3/l% ~ i r ) AE Admx.TABLE A4. POWDERED Batch(s) WI(C +J) (m) Slump (kg/m3) Unit Wt.1.1.49 (mm> Slump 90 (kg/m3) Unit Wt. FIELDRUAL MIX AND FRESH CONCRETE RESULTS. 48 GLASS SERIES MIX AND FRESH CONCREIE RESULTS.
0%.A U compressive strength results are adjusted to a nominal entrained air content of 6. Tabulated values are averages of several specimens.1. GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH RESULTS. A4.2. TABLE Batch No(s). Strength (MPa) at Age (days): 7 28 90 180 365 .
Strength (MPa) at Age (days): 7 28 90 180 365 .Batch No(s).
(CONTINUED) Batch No(s).1.2. Strength (MPa) at Age (days): . GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH RESULTS.TABLE A4.
Tabulated values are averages of several specimens. Section Strength (MPa) at Age (days): 7 28 120 365 .0%. Tabulated values are averages of several specimens.0%. 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.A l l compressive strength results are adjusted to a nominal entrained air content of 6.
A l l compressive strength results are adjusted to a nominal entrained air content of 6.0%. Tabulated values are averages of several specimens. Batch(s) Strength (MPa) at Age (days): 7 14 28 56 90 .
Section Strength (MPa) at Age (days): 28 120 365 Mix No. Strength (MPa) at Age (days): 7 14 28 56 90 .
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 A4.4. GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES CONCRETE PRISM ASR EXPANSION RESULTS.APPENDE4.1. Prism Expansion (x0. Batch No(s).
GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES CONCRETE PRISM ASR EXPANSION RESLTLTS . 0 0 1 % at ) Age (days): 7 28 112 365 730 1095 .4.1.TABLE A4. Prism Expansion ( ~ 0 . (CONTINUED) Batch No(s).
(CONTINUED) EXPANSION Batch No(s).001 %) at Age (days): 7 28 112 365 730 1095 .1. Prism Expansion (x0. GLASS-FLY ASHSERIES CONCRETE PRISM ASR RESULTS.4.TABLE A4.
001%) at Age (days): 7 14 28 56 112 224 365 . FIELD TRIAL CONCRETE PRISM ASR EXPANSION RESULTS.TABLE A4.4. Section Prism Expansion (~0.2.
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. 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): .5.
6. Batch Expansion (~0.APPENDIX 4.001%) at Age (days): 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 14 .1.6 ACCELERATED ASR EXPANSION RESULTS TABLE A4. ACCEEMT'F.D ASR EXPANSION RESULTS.
ACCELE.TABLE A4. (CONTINUED) Batch Expansion (x0.1.001 %) at Age (days): 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 14 .6.RA'IED ASR EXPANSION RESULTS.
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 listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.