compatibility of ultra high performance concrete as repair material

More documents

Recommendations

Info

used, as shown in Figure 3.17. A fast-Fourier transform method in DASYLab (version8.0) was utilized to calculate the fundamental transverse frequency, and from this value,the Relative Dynamic Modulus (RDM) of the composite sample was estimated as shownin Equation 3.4. In this research, the RDM was defined as the ratio between thefundamental transverse frequency of a sample after n cycles and the first fundamentalfrequency of the specimen taken after being in the chamber for 33 cycles. Note that theASTM C 666 recommends using the fundamental frequency at 0 cycles; however, thismeasurement was discarded due to the fact that it was taken in dry instead of moistureconditions. The mass measure was recorded with a precision of 0.01 lbs (4.5 g) using acalibrated scale.RDM c = 100 ∗ n 1 2n 2 Equation 3.4where RDM is the Relative Dynamic Modulus at c cycles, n 1 is the fundamentaltransverse frequency after c cycles and n is the initial fundamental transverse frequency.AccelerometerStyrofoam baseImpact hammer(a) The set-up for thesplitting tensile test.(b) Composite samples in thechamber.(c) Determining thefundamental longitudinalfrequency of the compositespecimen.Figure 3.17 Several steps of the splitting tensile test64
3.7.1.2 Indirect tensile loadingOnce the freeze-thaw test was completed, the samples were stored under ambientlaboratory conditions until one week before the loading test. At this point they were cutinto four small prisms, 4x3x3 in, discarding approximately 1.75 in of each end, asdescribed by Li et al. (1999) and Geissert et al. (1999) and shown in Figure 3.2.Compression loading was applied using the 55-kip 810 Material Test System (MTS)machine at a constant rate of 1800 lbf/min (8 kN/min) until the sample was split, asshown in Figure 3.13.a. This loading rate would produce an indirect tensile stress ofabout 95 psi/min in a monolithic NSC sample which is the same as that applied byGeissert et al. (1999) and slightly lower than that recommended by ASTM C 496 (100-200 psi/min). All samples were exposed to the same environmental conditions when theywere not in the freeze-thaw chamber. As shown in Table 3.8, the differential shrinkagebetween samples was kept constant between 0 and 300 cycles and as well between 600and 900 cycles, with the purpose of minimizing the introduction of a new variable intothe test matrix (Julio et al. 2005). To estimate the indirect tensile stress along the bondinterface, Equation 3.1 was applied despite the fact that the prisms were made up of twodifferent materials. The nominal area, 4x3 in, was used for the samples subjected to 0 and300 cycles while the real area was measured for those samples subjected to 600 and 900cycles. Figure 3.2.c shows the dimension of the steel bars and plywood strips used to heldthe prisms and transmit the stress evenly along the bond interface during the loading test.Figure 3.2.d gives an approximately distribution of indirect tensile stress along theinterface based on Geissert et al. (1999).3.7.2 Slant-shear testAfter demoulding, the composite samples were cured under ambient conditions (68-77°Fand 25-40% RH) until the day of testing. If the surface of NSC was not perfectly flat, asmall cut in the corner was made to obtain a regular surface. Different measures of thecross area of all prisms were taken. The load rate was 35 psi/s according to ASTM C 39.A calibrated Baldwin CT 300 hydraulic load frame was utilized to apply the load.65
Page 1 and 2:
COMPATIBILITY OF ULTRA HIGH PERFORM
Page 3 and 4:
Table of ContentsList of Figures ..
Page 5 and 6:
4.3.2 Discussion ..................
Page 7 and 8:
Figure 3.14 CSP index .............
Page 9 and 10:
Table 4.7 Summary of indirect tensi
Page 11 and 12:
List of AbbreviationsACI.AFtASTM.CO
Page 13 and 14:
1 Introduction and MotivationCurren
Page 15:
2 Background and Literature ReviewT
Page 18 and 19:
spaces and to decrease the amount o
Page 20 and 21:
water/binder=constantChoose steel f
Page 22 and 23:
UHPC formulations and provides a se
Page 24 and 25:
Table 2.3Comparison of UHPC materia
Page 26 and 27: esults obtained in this project wer
Page 28 and 29: 2.1.3.4 Environmental Impact of UHP
Page 30 and 31: 1997). Emmons and Vaysburd (1996) d
Page 32 and 33: e) ConstructabilityIt is recommenda
Page 34 and 35: Table 2.5, continuedCementitious ma
Page 36 and 37: • Rehabilitation of a bridge pier
Page 38 and 39: UHPC is a cost-effective solution i
Page 40 and 41: apparatus will measure the shear st
Page 42 and 43: substrate while the scarifying meth
Page 44 and 45: such test configuration, this upper
Page 46 and 47: From the equilibrium of forces of F
Page 48 and 49: The first layer, also called penetr
Page 50 and 51: 3 MethodologyThis report aims to st
Page 52 and 53: f sp = 2 ∗ PA ∗ π in psi Equat
Page 54 and 55: that the bond interface, in this lo
Page 56 and 57: Ductal® premix is typically compri
Page 58 and 59: associated test results (temperatur
Page 60 and 61: Figure 3.2 Detail of splitting tens
Page 62 and 63: 3.3.3 Pull-off testPull off test wa
Page 64 and 65: (a) Chipped surface, slightlybrushe
Page 66 and 67: (a) Molds to cast slant shearspecim
Page 68 and 69: Timber moulds were used to cast the
Page 70 and 71: macrotexture depth was measured in
Page 72 and 73: As shown in the above tables, the m
Page 74 and 75: (a) Concrete substrate under water
Page 78 and 79: Equation 2.2 and Equation 2.3 were
Page 80 and 81: (a) Steel disks glued to the UHPC s
Page 82 and 83: value to the lowest one in the foll
Page 84 and 85: Transversal frequency (Hz)255025002
Page 86 and 87: 115113Relative Dynamic Modulus (%)1
Page 88 and 89: Only those specimens with a grooved
Page 90 and 91: Table 4.6, continued.MeanMeanCOV,st
Page 92 and 93: concrete or bond/concrete while for
Page 94 and 95: surface treatment applied. In contr
Page 96 and 97: Table 4.8Summary of slant-shear tes
Page 98 and 99: (a) B(C): Bond due to concrete fail
Page 100 and 101: 3143Bond Capacity, (psi)30002500200
Page 102 and 103: The different failure modes obtaine
Page 104 and 105: failures occurred in the concrete s
Page 106 and 107: property of the concrete has higher
Page 108 and 109: 5.1.1 Combination of Splitting Tens
Page 110 and 111: 5.1.4 Overall performancea. For thi
Page 112 and 113: mismatch and load eccentricity. Tho
Page 114 and 115: 6 ReferenceAbu-Tair, A. I., Rigden,
Page 116 and 117: Climaco, J. C. T. S., and Regan, P.
Page 118 and 119: Graybeal, B., and Tanesi, J. (2007)
Page 120 and 121: Misson, D. (2008). "Influence of Cu
Page 122 and 123: Silfwerbrand, J. (1990). "Improving
Page 124 and 125: 7 Appendix: NSC mix designsTable 7.
Page 126 and 127:
Table 7.33rd mix for the splitting
Page 128 and 129:
Table 7.51st mix for the splitting
Page 130 and 131:
Table 7.73rd mix for the splitting
Page 132 and 133:
Figure 8.2 Concrete retarder inform
Page 134 and 135:
Table 9.1, continued.BrBr w/oBr 300
Page 136 and 137:
Table 9.2, continued.TrialBrushed 6
Page 138 and 139:
10 Appendix: Splitting tensile pris
Page 140 and 141:
Table 10.1, continued.128
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Table 10.2Splitting monolithic NSC
Page 150 and 151:
11 Appendix: Slant-shear specimens
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
PortionNumberof 1figures/tables/ill
Page 158 and 159:
Figure 2.5Miguel Angel Carbonell Mu
Page 160 and 161:
Miguel Angel Carbonell Munoz Mon, M
Page 162 and 163:
Miguel - not sure what you need fro
Page 164 and 165:
End Page 1235Type of UsePortionNumb
Page 166 and 167:
Type of UseIntended publisher of ot
show all

compatibility of ultra high performance concrete as repair material

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?