You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
• Dry Loss Method – Two identical specimens were prepared. One specimen and<br />
support base was abraded and the loose material was removed. The second<br />
specimen and support base were not subjected to the abrasion test. Both<br />
specimens were then oven-dried over night. The loss was determined as a<br />
percentage between the abraded specimen and the un-tested specimen.<br />
The general results for the support bases and the assessment method were noted as follows:<br />
The felt support base absorbs water and is difficult to handle and to pat-dry with paper towels. It<br />
tends to loose more material as it flexes, therefore, it produces a wider scatter of results. The<br />
aluminum and steel support bases were easy to use and handle. The results using these metal<br />
bases were observed to be more repeatable.<br />
The Dry Loss Method and the Wet Loss Method gave the most reproducible results. The<br />
Aggregate Loss Recovery Method proved very difficult to do and larger variations of the results<br />
were observed.<br />
In order to evaluate the effects that the base support and the assessment method have, mix M2<br />
was used. The formulation of mix M2 was previously studied and consisted of the following<br />
proportions:<br />
Mix M2<br />
• 100 grams of aggregate<br />
• 1.5 grams of cement<br />
• 8 grams of water (Based on the weight of dry aggregate)<br />
• 0.25 gram of additive<br />
• 13 grams of emulsion<br />
The test specimens were cured for 30, 60, and 180 minutes before testing. Duplicate tests were<br />
performed for each of the assessment methods and base supports, except for the aluminum<br />
base, for which only one test was performed. The results are summarized in Table 4.7. The<br />
decrease in abrasion loss with time is illustrated in Figures 4.23 and 4.24.<br />
60
Change language