High-Early Strength Concrete with Polypropylene

Fibbers
as Cost-Effective Alternative for Field-Cast Connections of
Precast Elements in Accelerated Bridge Construction

Presented by:
Ahmed Gamal Behery 201810724
Hadeer Hosney Ali 201920623
OUTLINE
• INTRODUCTION
• LABORATORY TESTING METHODS
• PRECAST CONCRETE SURFACE PREPARATION
• METHODOLOGY AND DATA ACQUISITION
• MIX DESIGN
• STANDARD TEST SPECIMENS
• SUMMARY TO THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
• SELECTION OF OPTIMUM HES CONCRETE MIX
• INTERFACE BOND TEST RESULT
• HEADED BAR PULL-OUT TEST RESULTS
• BEAM WITH CLOSURE POUR TEST RESULTS
• DISCUSSION
• SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
• REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
• Accelerated bridge construction methods requires that bridge precast concrete

components be effectively connected to one another in the field.

• There have been several experimental tests showing that precast bridge deck

panels or girders may be effectively connected by placing UHPC in 15-cm wide

closure pours between the precast elements .

• UHPC allows full strength development of (16 mm) bars extended from precast

elements into the narrow closure pours.

• Although UHPC is an excellent material with a 28-day compressive strength

greater than 150 MPa and a 28-day tensile strength more than 5 MPa.
 INTRODUCTION
It has the following disadvantages:
• It is a proprietary material with an installed cost of $10,000– $15,000 per cubic

yard in Idaho.

• Its proper installation requires rigorous preparation and quality control, which

at times may be difficult to achieve.

• It is fast setting and thus must be batched in small quantities.

• It requires special portable field mixing equipment, and as such is labor

intensive.

• Because of its initial consistency (i.e., it is quite “watery”), its placement on

steep grades is problematic. As an alternative, the Idaho Transportation

Department (ITD) is proposing placing high-early strength (HES) concrete with

fibers, with a minimum compressive strength of 34.5 MPa in 28 days, in the 25-

cm closure pours between girders.

 INTRODUCTION
The advantages of this approach are:

• HES concrete with fibers can be batched in the ready-mix plant, brought to the

field in the mixing truck, and placed similarly to con0ventional concrete.

• ITD allows removal of the forms for HES concrete after 1 day, whereas for UHPC,

ITD requires a minimum curing time of 4 days and a compressive strength of 100

MPa before removal of the forms.

• The cost of HES concrete is not much higher than the cost of conventional

concrete ($600–$700 per cubic yard).

• The estimated cost saving versus the use of UHPC or high-strength mortar for a

typical two-span bridge in Idaho is approximately $100,000.

• Regarding the removal of forms for HES concrete after 1 day, ITD requires
that HES concrete have a compressive strength of 21 MPa in 24 h. Only when
this strength is met can the forms be removed.
• In addition, ITD requires that traffic may not be placed on top of the girders
before HES closure pour and end diaphragm concretes achieve 34.5 MPa
compressive strength.
• The HES concrete usually achieves 34.5 MPa compressive strength within 7
days.
• In practice, it usually takes more than 7 days before the bridge is open to
traffic after placing closure pours between girders.
• Although ITD’s HES concrete is specified to have a minimum strength of 34.5
MPa in 28 days, typically a strength of 55 MPa is achieved within this time
frame, which closely matches ITD’s required concrete strengths for precast
elements 58.6 MPa.

• The objective of the experimental research project is to obtain

experimental data on the behaviour of several mixes containing
HES with and without polypropylene fibers and select the optimum
 LABORATORY TESTING METHODS
• In addition to standard tests for strength and stiffness behaviour, two other important
tests are the shrinkage test and the test for bond strength between precast concrete
and field-cast material.
• Minimizing shrinkage is important for connecting prefabricated bridge elements.
• A prismatic concrete bar of 7.6 ×7.6 cm in cross-section and 28.6 cm
length is used in this test.
• A poor bond between precast and field-cast concrete could result in
cracks at the interface, allowing water to penetrate into the deck and
cause damage.
• The flexural beam test is based on ASTM C78, Standard Test Method for
Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third-Point
Loading).
• This test is performed on a 15 × 15 ×53 cm composite beam with one
half containing the base material and the other half containing the closure
PRECAST CONCRETE SURFACE
PREPARATION
• Two important factors to improve bond strength between precast concrete
and closure material are surface roughness and moisture at the interface.

• One component of surface preparation involves roughening of the substrate

surface, which increases the contact area for the new concrete to bond.

• In general, research shows that the greater the surface roughness, the
higher the bond strength.

• In the current study, the SSD condition was used prior to placing the closure
pour material next to the precast concrete because the loading (i.e., tensile
stress due to bending) better matches the direct tensile stress.
METHODOLOGY AND DATA ACQUISITION

• The optimum high-early strength concrete mix was chosen based on

compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, and shrinkage.

• Interface bond strength tests were conducted using segments of precast and

optimum material.

• The ITD is currently using high early strength concrete with polypropylene

fibre in certain parts of bridges; therefore, the materials considered in this

study were readily available.

 MIX DESIGN
• A control mix and five alternative mixes were selected.
• The cement for this mix was Type II. Fly ash Class F was used as a cement
substitute [secondary cementations material (SCM)].
• To obtain high-early strength concrete, an accelerating admixture was included.
An air entrained was used to control air content.
• A high range water reducer (HRWR) was used in order to achieve the required
slump.
• Other parameters to create the remaining mixes were shrinkage reducing
admixture, bonding admixture, and polypropylene fibers.
• All mixtures had a water-to-cement ratio of 0.35. The ITD requirement for fly
ash was 20%. The air content was specified at 6.5%±1.5% per ITD requirement.
 MIX DESIGN
Fiber (kg/m³)
0.89 0.89
1 Fiber (kg/m³)
0.45 0.45
0 0
0
A B C D E F
AE(mL/100 kg)
1000
500
456 652 652 652 0 0
0
A B C D E F

HRWR (mL/10 kg)

1000
522 522 522 522 456
500 391 HRWR (mL/10 kg)
0
A B C D E F
 MIX DESIGN

SRA (liter/m³)
6 4.95 4.95 4.95
4
SRA (liter/m³)
2
0 0 0
0
A B C D E F

BA
0.4 1:3
1:3 BA
0.2
0 0 0 0
0
A B C D E F
STANDARD TEST SPECIMENS
Summary of the Experimental Results

• Interface Bond Test

• Headed Bar Pull-Out Test.
• Beam with Closure Pour Test.
Selection of Optimum HES
Concrete Mix
• Regarding the 1-day strength, allows removal of forms for HES concrete after
1 day and when the concrete has a minimum compressive strength of 21 MPa.

HES mixes and the measured average compressive

strength
70
Compressive strength (MPa)

61.12
60 58.41
54.45 54.19 56.27
53.16
50

40

30 24.73 24.4
22.04 21.2
20 17.58 18.77

10

0
A B C D E F

Concrete Mix

1-day compressive strength, MPa 28-day compressive strength, MPa

Selection of Optimum HES Concrete Mix

HES mixes and the measured average 28 day split tensile strength
7

6 5.77
5.29 5.27
Tensile strength (MPa)

5.05 5.16
5
4.37

0
A B C D E F

Concrete Mix
• The presence of shrinkage-reducing admixture had a significant

effect on the long-term shrinkage values .

Long-term (1-year) shrinkage , micro strain
(10−6 mm=mm)
800
736

700 673
655
Shrinkage ( 10^-6 mm)

600
555
522 528
500

400

300

200

100

0
A B C D E F

Concrete Mix
Selection of Optimum HES Concrete Mix

• After comparing all the data in Figures, Mix D, containing

0.89 kg/m3 of fibres and shrinkage-reducing admixture,
performed the best.

• It had the largest compressive and tensile strength and the

lowest shrinkage.
Interface Bond Test

• The optimum closure pour mix (Mix D) and Mix E were

selected for testing with and without the bonding agent.
• Four specimens from each case were selected, resulting in a
total of (16) interface bond strength tests.

• Two distinct failure types were observed:

1. a sudden failure of the beam after the maximum load was
attained, which was seen in samples without bonding agent.
2. A more ductile behaviour, with samples reaching their peak
load, then undergoing more deflection before ultimate failure.
(The use of bonding agent at the interface is the reason )
 The results of the interface bond strength tests

4.5
Interface bond strength summary
4.22

4 3.87

3.5
Average bond strength,

3.01
3
2.66
2.5

1.5
MPa

0.5

0
Bonding Agent
Mix
Headed Bar Pull-Out Test

• The headed bar pull-out specimens was prepared with Mix

D and without bonding agent at the interface with precast
concrete.
• In all the tests, cracking initiated at the top interface and
propagated horizontally across the sample.
• Then, the bottom interface began to show formation of
cracks.
• After reaching the ultimate load, there was a sudden drop in
load and the specimen cracked along the centre rebar and
down into the lower precast concrete section.
• Conical cracks also developed at the location of the center
rebar head.
Typical headed bar pull-out specimen crack
pattern at the end of the test
Beam with Closure Pour Test

Three-point flexural test diagram

Four-point flexural test diagram

 Force Results
Moment Results
60 54.31
18 16.62 16.55
50 16
42.22
14
40 12
10
30
8
6 5.02
20 3.98
12.75 13.05 4
10 2
0
0 cracking moment ultimate moment
Cracking force Ultimate force
3 - Point Test 4 - Point Test
3 - Point Test 4 - Point Test
Beam with Closure Pour Test

• The initial crack always formed at the interface of closure

pour and precast.

• Both the three-point and four-point loading tests had almost

the same ultimate moment capacity.
 Summary and Conclusions
• HES concrete costs much less than UHSC and can be placed
similarly to conventional concrete.

• The optimum mix (Mix D), containing HES concrete, 0.89 kg/m3
of fibre, and shrinkage-reducing admixture, performed the best.

• The optimum mix without the bonding agent performed the best.

• Headed bar tensile strength tests with the optimum mix resulted
in bar stress of 67% of the steel specified yield strength.

• The strength values of UHPC, especially compressive strength,

exceed those of HES Mix D selected in this study.

• The bond strength for HES Mix D was comparable to that of

UHPC.
References

• Casanova, M. 2019. “High-Early Strength Concrete with

Polypropylene Fibres as Cost-Effective Alternative for Field-
Cast Connections of Precast Elements in Accelerated
Bridge Construction.” M.S. thesis, Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Idaho State Univ.
Questions?!

Thank you