Effect of Different Types of Coarse Aggregates on Strength of Concrete

Abstract:

Article Preview

Different types of coarse aggregates have distinguished petrological, petrographical and mineralogical and local characteristics, thus, their effects on concrete strength development are quite significant, various and unpredictable. So, the laboratory investigation on the concrete mixtures using local aggregates becomes very necessary before used in engineering practice. This paper carried out the evaluation of two types of coarse aggregates constantly used in Florida, including Miami Oolite limestone and Georgia granite, on their effects on the developments of compressive strength, splitting tensile strength and elastic modulus of concrete with time. And the prediction models based on ACI and Cario-Lew are evaluated and modified. The investigation results indicate that the concrete mixtures with Georgia granite aggregate tends to develop lower strength than those with Miami Oolite aggregate. And the modified models give better prediction on strength development of the concrete mixtures with aggregates often used in Florida.

Info:

Periodical:

Edited by:

Yongbo Shao, Shuguang Hao, Yuping Luo, Jibo Xing and Zhiyong Liu

Pages:

614-623

DOI:

10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.174-177.614

Citation:

Y. J. Liu and M. Tia, "Effect of Different Types of Coarse Aggregates on Strength of Concrete", Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vols. 174-177, pp. 614-623, 2012

Online since:

May 2012

Authors:

Export:

Price:

$35.00

[1] Aitcin, P-C. and Mehta, P. K. 1990. Effect of coarse aggregate characteristics on mechanical properties of high strength concrete. ACI Materials Journal, Mar-Apr 1990, Vol. 87, No. 2, pp.103-107.

DOI: 10.14359/1882

[2] Sarkar, S. L. and Aitcin, P-C, 1990. Importance of petrological, petrographical and mineralogical characteristics of aggregates in very high strength concrete. ASTM Special Technical Publication, 1990, No. 1061, pp.129-144.

DOI: 10.1520/stp23457s

[3] Alexander, M. G. and Addis, B. J., 1992. Properties of High Strength Concrete Influenced by Aggregates and Interfacial Bond. Bond in Concrete: From Research to Practice. Proceedings of the CEB International Conference held at Riga Technical University, Riga, Latvia, Oct. 15-17, Vol. 2, Topics 3-7, pp.4-19.

[4] Giaccio, G., Rocco, C., Violini, D., Zappitelli, J., and Zerbino, R., 1992. High strength concrete incorporating different coarse aggregates. ACI Materials Journal, May-Jun 1992, Vol. 89, No. 3, pp.242-246.

DOI: 10.14359/2568

[5] ACI 318-08, 2008. Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, November (2008).

[6] Branson, D.E.; Meyers, B.L.; and Kripanarayanan, K. M, 1970. Loss of Prestress, Camber, and Deflection of Noncomposite and Composite Structures Using Different Weight Concretes. Final Report No. 70-6, Iowa Highway Commission, Aug. 1970, Pp 1-229.

[7] Carino, N.J., and H.S. Lew, 1982. Re-examination of the Relation between Splitting Tensile and Compressive Strength of Normal Weight Concrete. Journal of American Concrete Institute, Vol. 79, No. 3, May-June 1982, pp.214-219.

DOI: 10.14359/10900

[1] 5.

48% 125/205min 402m2/kg 2400 psi 2930 psi Table 2 Chemical and mineral ingredients of Type I cement Ingredients SiO2 Al2O3 CaO SO3 Na2O-K2O MgO Fe2O3 C3A C3S C2S C4AF (%).

[20] 3.

[4] 8.

[63] 9.

[3] 1.

51.

[2] 0.

[3] 3 7 59.

[13] 8.

[15] 8 Table3 Physical and chemical properties of mineral additives (%) Mineral Additives SO3 Oxide of Si, Fe, Al Fineness Strength(7d) Strength (28d) Loss on Ignition Water Fly ash.

3 84 32 N/A 78.

[4] 3 102 Slag.

[1] 7 N/A 4 92 129 N/A N/A Table 4 Physical properties of aggregates Aggregate SSD SG Apparent SG Bulk SG Absorption Fineness Modulus Miami Oolite.

[2] 431.

[2] 541.

[2] 360.

[3] 03% -- Georgia Granite.

[2] 82.

[2] 85.

[2] 80.

58% -- Goldhead Sand.

[2] 644.

[2] 664.

[2] 631.

5.

[2] 30 Table 5 Mix proportions of the concrete mixtures used in this study Coarse Agg. No. of Mix W/C Cement (lbs/yd3) Fly ash (lbs/yd3) Slag (lbs/yd3) Water (lbs/yd3) FA (lbs/yd3) CA (lbs/yd3) Miami Oolite Mix-1MF.

DOI: 10.4271/730754

33 656 144 -- 265. 6 905 1740 Mix-2MF.

41 494 123 -- 254. 0 1175 1747 Mix-3MS.

33 400 -- 400 262. 0 1062 1750 Mix-4MS.

41 197 -- 461 267. 0 1121 1750 Georgia Granite Mix-1GF.

33 656 144 -- 265. 6 909 1981 Mix-2GF.

41 494 123 -- 254. 0 1176 2027 Mix-3GS.

33 400 -- 400 262. 0 1066 2045 Mix-4GS.

41 197 -- 461 267. 0 1125 2045 Table 6 Properties of fresh concrete No. of Mix Slump (in) Air Content (%) Unit Weight (lbs/yd3) Setting Time Mixture Temperature (°F) Initial Final Mix-1MF.

[7] 50.

[7] 30 133. 4 2h 50min 4h 35min 79 Mix-2MF.

[1] 50.

[1] 60 145. 7 4h 55min 7h 15min 79 Mix-3MS.

[7] 25.

[6] 80 136. 9 -- -- 81 Mix-4MS.

[4] 00.

[5] 50 138. 8 -- -- 77 Mix-1GF.

[4] 50.

[7] 40 144. 9 -- -- 78 Mix-2GF.

[2] 50.

[1] 50 150. 1 -- -- 79 Mix-3GS.

[6] 50.

[5] 50 145. 8 -- -- 76 Mix-4GS.

[2] 25.

[3] 80 147. 3 -- -- 74 Table 7 Regression analysis for compressive strength prediction using ACI 209 equation No. of Mix a a by ACI b b by ACI SRASS by Modified ACI EQ SRASS by ACI EQ M-1MF.

DOI: 10.14359/9641

[2] 67 4.

89.

85 371 541 M-2MF.

[2] 25.

90 343 792 M-3MS.

[2] 04.

92 67 886 M-4MS.

[1] 79.

92 275 1698 M-1GF.

[2] 64.

89 180 445 M-2GF.

[3] 51.

88 197 257 M-3GS.

[4] 99.

82 160 311 M-4GS.

[5] 35.

86 269 547 Note: SRASS-square root of absolute sum of square Table 8 Values of the constants, a, b and a/b and the time ratios from EQ-1 and EQ-2 Time Ratio Aggregate type a, b and a/b Concrete ages (days) Ultimate in time 3 7 14 28 56 91 ACI 209R-4 a=4. 00 b=0. 85.

46.

70.

88.

[1] 00.

[1] 08.

[1] 12.

[1] 18 Miami Oolite Limestone a=1. 89 b=0. 90.

65.

85.

97.

[1] 00.

[1] 07.

[1] 09.

[1] 11 Granite a=4. 12 b=0. 86.

45.

69.

87.

[1] 00.

[1] 07.

[1] 10.

[1] 16 ACI 209R-4 a/b=4. 71.

39.

60.

75.

86.

92.

95.

[1] 00 Miami Oolite a/b=2. 10.

59.

77.

87.

93.

96.

98.

[1] 00 Granite a/b=4. 79.

39.

59.

75.

85.

95.

95.

[1] 00 Table 9 Regression analysis for relating compressive strength to splitting tensile strength Equation Coefficient A or B Standard Error SRASS by Modified equation SRASS by original equation.

[6] 91.

76 60.

[62] 3.

72.

015 45.

[75] 7 Table 10 Results of regression analysis for prediction of elastic modulus using ACI318-95 equation Best-fit values With equation going through the origin Without going through the origin slope.

[33] 64±0. 28.

[30] 18±1. 17 Y-intercept when X=0 0 484200±159900 X-intercept when Y=0 0 -16040 1/Slope.

030.

033 95% Confidence Interval Slope.

[33] 10 to 34. 17.

[27] 85 to 32. 51 Sy. x 335100 319700 Fig. 1 Comparison of compressive strength of concretes with different coarse aggregates Fig. 2 Comparison of splitting tensile strength of concretes with different coarse aggregate Fig. 3 Comparison of elastic modulus of concretes with different coarse aggregates Fig. 4 Gradation of Aggregates Fig. 5 Relationship between compressive strength and splitting tensile strength Fig. 6 Modified ASSHTO model for predicting elastic modulus of concrete Fig. 7 Relationship between compressive strength and elastic modulus of concrete.

DOI: 10.4334/jkci.2003.15.1.155

In order to see related information, you need to Login.