Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

Front Struc Civil Eng    2014, Vol. 8 Issue (1) : 36-45     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-014-0243-0
RESEARCH ARTICLE |
A comparative study of the mechanical properties, fracture behavior, creep, and shrinkage of chemically based self-consolidating concrete
Mahdi AREZOUMANDI1(), Mark EZZELL2, Jeffery S VOLZ3
1. Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Missouri MO 65409, USA; 2. U S Army Corps of Engineers, 1222 Spruce St., St. Louis, Missouri MO 63103, USA; 3. School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman OK 73019-1024, USA
Download: PDF(319 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

This study presents the results of an experimental investigation that compares the mechanical properties, fracture behavior, creep, and shrinkage of a chemically-based self-consolidating concrete (SCC) mix with that of a corresponding conventional concrete (CC) mix. The CC and SCC mix designs followed conventional proportioning in terms of aggregate type and content, cement content, air content, water-cementitiuos materials (w/cm) ratio, and workability. Then, using only chemical admixtures, the authors converted the CC mix to an SCC mix with all of the necessary passing, filling, flowability, and stability requirements typically found in SCC. The high fluidity was achieved with a polycarboxylate-based high-range water-reducing admixture, while the enhanced stability was accomplished with an organic, polymer-based viscosity-modifying admixture. The comparison indicated that the SCC and CC mixes had virtually identical tensile splitting strengths, flexural strengths, creep, and shrinkage. However, the SCC mix showed higher compressive strengths and fracture energies than the corresponding CC mix.

Keywords admixture      conventional concrete (CC)      creep      fracture mechanic      mechanical Properties      self-consolidating concrete (SCC)      shrinkage     
Corresponding Authors: AREZOUMANDI Mahdi,Email:ma526@mst.edu   
Issue Date: 05 March 2014
 Cite this article:   
Mark EZZELL,Jeffery S VOLZ,Mahdi AREZOUMANDI. A comparative study of the mechanical properties, fracture behavior, creep, and shrinkage of chemically based self-consolidating concrete[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2014, 8(1): 36-45.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-014-0243-0
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2014/V8/I1/36
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Mark EZZELL
Jeffery S VOLZ
Mahdi AREZOUMANDI
materialwatercementfly ashfine aggregatecoarse aggregateMB-AE-90Glenium 7500Rheomac VMA
/(kg·m-3)/(kg·m-3)/(kg·m-3)/(kg·m-3)/(kg·m-3)/(l/m3)/(l/m3)362/(l/m3)
CC17933611257610560.18
SCC17933611257610560.181.752.34
Tab.1  Mixture proportions of concrete
propertyair contentunit weightslumpslumpJ-ringvisual stabilitystatic segregationL-box
/%/(kg·m-3)/mmflow/mm/mmindexcolumn/%/%
CC5.02370100
SCC5.923606201585123.5381.74
Tab.2  Fresh mixture properties
Fig.1  Fracture energy specimens
Fig.2  Creep and shrinkage specimens. (a) Plan view; (b) elevation view; (c) shrinkage specimens; (d) creep specimens
Fig.3  Development of compressive strength of concrete
CCSCC
fca)fcta)fct/√fcfca)fcta)fct/√fc
17.651.930.4626.142.080.41
23.362.010.4243.504.020.61
25.612.590.5130.632.220.40
26.422.800.5431.002.510.45
29.093.100.5730.343.600.65
31.382.650.4747.253.740.54
32.382.800.4946.083.090.46
33.112.880.5038.503.190.51
33.122.560.4534.722.140.36
33.522.790.4832.932.110.37
33.532.800.4838.592.890.47
34.203.010.5241.953.080.48
34.442.760.4755.333.900.52
34.842.960.5040.663.400.53
35.102.780.4752.873.830.53
36.622.980.4944.623.930.59
37.642.850.4624.402.630.53
37.803.030.4922.172.210.47
38.373.110.5040.773.700.58
ave.0.490.50
COV/%7.1316.18
Tab.3  Tensile splitting strength/MPa
Fig.4  Tensile splitting strength . compressive strength of concrete; results from literature [] and test results of this study
CCSCC
fca)fr a)fr/√fcfc a)fr a)fr/√fc
31.383.920.7047.254.620.67
32.384.090.7246.084.660.69
33.283.500.6152.875.390.74
33.533.210.5656.745.120.68
34.203.260.5655.015.540.75
34.443.850.6645.964.080.60
35.104.250.7243.503.730.56
35.813.060.5155.334.830.65
36.624.280.7148.083.710.53
38.374.210.6845.233.940.59
ave.0.640.65
COV/%12.0511.20
Tab.4  Flexural strength/MPa
mixCCSCC
first Batchsecond batchfirst batchsecond batch
fca)36.538.541.345.1
GFb)135123136150
122147135148
112125138152
110120129160
GF(AVE)120129135153
GF(Bazant)121124128134
GF(JSCE)87889093
GF(CEB-FIP)139141143145
(GF(test)GF(Bazant))0.991.041.051.14
(GF(test)GF(JSCE))1.391.461.501.65
(GF(test)GF(CEB-FIP))0.860.920.951.06
Tab.5  Fracture energy ()
Fig.5  Fracture energy vs. compressive strength; results from literature [] and test results of this study
Fig.6  Creep and shrinkage test data. (a) Creep; (b) shrinkage
Fig.7  Creep and shrinkage test data vs. ACI 209 prediction models. (a) Creep; (b) shrinkage
hypothesisPa)NPb)
tensile splitting strength
fct(CC) = fct(SCC)0.600.748
flexural strength
fr(CC) = fr(SCC)0.9450.998
Bazant equation
GF(SCC)>GF(CC)0.9630.960
JSCE-07 equation
GF(SCC)>GF(CC)0.9650.971
CEB-FIP Model Code 2010 equation
GF(SCC)>GF(CC)0.9780.971
Tab.6  P-values for statistic tests
1 Ozawa K, Maekawa K, Kunishima M, Okamura H. Development of high performance concrete based on the durability design of concrete structures. In: Proceedings of the Second East-Asia and Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction (EASEC-2) . 1989, 1: 445–450
2 Daczko J, Vachon M. Self Consolidating Concrete (SCC). Significance of Tests and Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials STP 169D. ASTM International West Conshohocken, PA , 2006, 637–645
3 Okamura H. Self-compacting high-performance concrete. Concrete International , 1997, 1(4): 50–54
4 ACI Committee 237. Self –Consolidaing Concrete (ACI 237R–07). Farmington Hills , MI: American Concrete Institute, 2007
5 Domone P L. A review of the hardened mechanical properties of self-compacting concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites Journal , 2007, 29(1): 1–12
6 Fava C, Bergol L, Fornasia G, Giangrasso F, Rocco C. Fracture behaviour of self compacting concrete. In: Wallevik O, Nielsson I, eds. Proceedings of third RILEM International Symposium on Self Compacting Concrete Reykjavik Iceland. Bagneux , France: RILEM Publications, 2003, PRO 33: 628–36
7 Arezoumandi M, Volz J. Shear strength of chemically-based self-consolidating concrete beams — fracture mechanics approach vs. modified compression field theory. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering , 2013 (in press)
8 Aslani F, Nejadi S. Mechanical properties of conventional and self-compacting concrete: An analytical study. Construction and Building Material Journal , 2012, 36: 330–347
9 Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. A three dimensional large deformation meshfree method for arbitrary evolving cracks. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 2007, 196(29–30): 2777–2799
10 Rabczuk T, Eibl J. Modeling dynamic failure of concrete with meshfree particle methods. International Journal of Impact Engineering , 2006, 32(11): 1878–1897
11 Rabczuk T, Belytschko T. Application of particle methods to static fracture of reinforced concrete structures. International Journal of Fracture , 2006, 137(1–4): 19–49
12 ASTM C 39/C 39M. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA , 2012, 7
13 ASTM C 496/C 496M. Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA , 2011, 5
14 ASTM C 78/C 78M. Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA , 2010, 4
15 Hillerborg A. The theoretical basis of a method to determine the fracture energy GF of concrete. Materials and Structures , 1985, 18(4): 291–296
16 RILEM. TC 50-FMC, Fracture mechanics of concrete, determination of the fracture energy of mortar and concrete by means of three-point bend tests on notched beams, RILEM recommendation. Materials and Structures , 1985, 18(16): 287–290
17 ASTM C 512/C 512M. Standard Test Method for Creep of Concrete in Compression. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA , 2010, 5
18 ASTM C 157/C 157M. Standard Test Method for Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic-Cement Mortar and Concrete. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA , 2008, 7
19 ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318–08). American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI , 2008
20 Kosmatka S H, Wilson M L. Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures. 15th ed. Portlanld Cement Association , 2011
21 Ba?ant Z P, Becq-Giraudon E. Statistical prediction of fracture parameters of concrete and implications for choice of testing standards. Cement and Concrete Research Journal , 2002, 32(4): 529–556
22 Standard Specifications for Concrete Structures. Japan Society of Civil Engineers No. 15, Tokyo , 2007, 154–159
23 CEB-FIP Model Code 2010-fib. 2012, 1: 120
24 ACI Committee 209. Guide for Modeling and Calculating Shrinkage and Creep in Hardened Concrete (ACI 209.2R–08). Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute, 2008
25 Base SAS 9.4 Procedures Guide: Statistical Procedures. SAS Institute, ISBN: 978–1612905587, August, 2013
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Said CHOUCHA, Amar BENYAHIA, Mohamed GHRICI, Mohamed Said MANSOUR. Effect of natural pozzolan content on the properties of engineered cementitious composites as repair material[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2018, 12(3): 261-269.
[2] Yanhua GUAN, Ying GAO, Renjuan SUN, Moon C. WON, Zhi GE. Experimental study and field application of calcium sulfoaluminate cement for rapid repair of concrete pavements[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2017, 11(3): 338-345.
[3] Wenjuan SUN, Linbing WANG, Yaqiong WANG. Mechanical properties of rock materials with related to mineralogical characteristics and grain size through experimental investigation: a comprehensive review[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2017, 11(3): 322-328.
[4] Blandine FENEUIL,Karin HABERMEHI-CWIRZEN,Andrzej CWIRZEN. Contribution of CNTs/CNFs morphology to reduction of autogenous shrinkage of Portland cement paste[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2016, 10(2): 224-235.
[5] Mahdi AREZOUMANDI. Feasibility of crack free reinforced concrete bridge deck from materials composition perspective: a state of the art review[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2015, 9(1): 91-103.
[6] K. S. SIVAKUMARAN,R. M. KOROL,Xiao FAN. Energy absorption potential of concrete floors containing secondary (shrinkage and temperature) reinforcements[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2014, 8(3): 282-291.
[7] Hui ZHU, Yuching WU. Finite element analysis of creep for plane steel frames in fire[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2012, 6(3): 297-307.
[8] Erich BAUER, Zhongzhi FU, Sihong LIU. Influence of pressure and density on the rheological properties of rockfills[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2012, 6(1): 25-34.
[9] Faxing DING, Xiaoyong YING, Linchao ZHOU, Zhiwu YU. Unified calculation method and its application in determining the uniaxial mechanical properties of concrete[J]. Front Arch Civil Eng Chin, 2011, 5(3): 381-393.
[10] Herbert LINSBAUER. Hazard potential of zones of weakness in gravity dams under impact loading conditions[J]. Front Arch Civil Eng Chin, 2011, 5(1): 90-97.
[11] Marta DOLEZALOVA, Ivo HLADIK. Long-term behavior and safety assessment of Sance Rockfill Dam[J]. Front Arch Civil Eng Chin, 2011, 5(1): 79-89.
[12] Erich BAUER, Zhongzhi FU, Sihong LIU, . Hypoplastic constitutive modeling of wetting deformation of weathered rockfill materials[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2010, 4(1): 78-91.
[13] Pusheng SHEN, Hui FANG, Xinhong XIA. Effect of concrete creep and shrinkage on tall hybrid-structures and its countermeasures[J]. Front Arch Civil Eng Chin, 2009, 3(2): 234-239.
[14] SHAO Xudong, LI Lifeng, YANG Jianjun. Experimental research on the creep behavior and bearing capacity of repeatedly prestressed concrete beam[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2007, 1(3): 305-311.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed