Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
|
.
|
\
|
=
(
= c
Hygro-thermal Strain (2)
Kelvin-Laplace equation
water of me molar volu : '
degree; Kelvin in re temperatu :
constant; gas universal :
where
'
) RH ln(
u
u
T
R
RT
p =
Slab-base friction
f
o
L: joint spacing
E
L
f
4
2
=
o
Expansion caused by friction (after K.P. George)
Joint opening (o)
( )
taken. "-" otherwise,
taken; " " n, contractio i.e. , 0 when
+ < +
+ + =
o c c
o c c c o
HT T
f
curl
HT T
L
Field Validation
Field data: three concrete slabs were cast on
06/22/06 at ATREL
Slab size: 15x12x10, BAM
Temp., RH measured @ surface, 1,3,5,7
and 9 at 15-min. interval
Two LVDTs installed in each joint to measure
joint opening
Joint Opening Measurement
Two week joint opening
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
6/22 6/24 6/26 6/28 6/30 7/2 7/4 7/6 7/8
DATE
J
O
I
N
T
-
O
P
E
N
I
N
G
(
i
n
)
A
B
C
D
A
C
B D
Two month joint opening
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
6/12 6/22 7/2 7/12 7/22 8/1 8/11 8/21 8/31 9/10 9/20
DATE
J
O
I
N
T
-
O
P
E
N
I
N
G
(
i
n
)
A
B
C
D
A C
B D
Concrete Free Shrinkage
SHRINKAGE 688.38 ST MIX
0
200
400
600
800
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Age (days)
S
h
r
i
n
k
a
g
e
(
m
m
/
m
m
)
.
Total shrinkage - Lab Mix
Total shrinkage - Field Mix
Autogrenous shrinkage - Field Mix
Material inputs
Setting temp. T= 50C (122F)
o=5.75 x 10
-6
/
F (10.35 x 10
-6
/
C)
K=2.12 x 10
6
psi
K
s
=3.77 x 10
6
psi
E=4.03 x 10
6
psi
Unit weight =149 pcf
Friction coeff. = 2.5
Data set: 0:08a.m. on 07/01/06 12:38p.m. on
07/13/06 at 15-min. interval
Predicted joint opening(1)
Predicted joint opening(2)
Future Work
Concrete Pavement / Material
Interaction
Hygro-thermal effects on slab behavior
Curling & joint opening (slab sizes)
Dowel
Construction practices (curing, temp, mix components)
Early & long age
Material effects (e.g.)
Combined gradation*
Slag
High early strength/stiffness
FRC
PCC slab
Wind
Solar radiation
Convection
Reflected radiation
BAM
ASB
Subgrade
Conduction
Conduction
Surface Energy Balance
N-layer Heat Transfer Model
Governing PDE
(J/kg/C) capacity heat specific : c
) (kg/m density concrete :
hr) / (J/m hydration of heat : Q
hr) / (m y diffusivit thermal :
where
1
p
3
2
h
2
2
2
2
2
o
i
p
h
i i i
i
i
c
Q
z
T
r
T
r r
T
t
T
+
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
+
c
c
+
c
c
=
c
c
Layer 1
Layer 2
Layer n
1 1 1 1
, , , T h o
2 2 2 2
, , , T h o
n n n
T , ,o
Z
r
B.C.s
QUESTIONS
www.cee.uiuc.edu\research\ceat
Thanks!
Curling Questions
How does shrinkage effect slab size?
What are the combined effect of
moisture/temperature profile?
What is the role concrete creep?
How do other concrete materials behave
FRC & SRA?
Slab Curling
Effects of materials
and slab geometry on
moisture and
temperature curling
HT CR
c c = 5 . 0
CR HT T tot
c c c c + + =
( )
) 1 ( 2
) , ( ) , ( ) , ( ) ( ) (
) 1 ( 2
) ( ) ( ) (
) , (
v
z t z t z t t E t C
v
z t E t C
z t
CR HT T
+ +
=
=
c c c c
o
)) ( ln(
98 . 0
) (
1 75 . 0 1
3
1
3
1 ) (
) (
3
0
z RH
z RH
k k v
z RT
z
w
Total
HT
(
(
(
(
|
.
|
\
|
(
= c
dz z RH
z RH
k k v
z RT
h
z z
h
h w
Total
HT NL L HT
}
+
(
(
(
(
|
.
|
\
|
(
=
2 /
2 /
3
0
)) ( ln(
98 . 0
) (
1 75 . 0 1
3
1
3
1 ) ( 1
) ( ) ( c c
c
c
o
o
o
o
Time
Stress
P
c
Vapor
Diffusion
after Grasley (2006) & Rodden (2006)
Field vs Lab
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Elapsed Time (days)
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
R
H
(
%
)
Surface - 1
Surface - 2
1/2" - 1
1/2" - 2
1"
5"
7"
11" - 1
11" -2
14" - 1
14" - 2
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Elapsed Time (days)
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
R
H
(
%
)
0"
1/2"
1"
3"
7"
11"
14"
Field
Lab
-7.5
-6
-4.5
-3
-1.5
0
1.5
3
4.5
6
7.5
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
RH (%)
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
S
l
a
b
(
i
n
)
Actual RH
Second Order
Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
GGBFS
Introduction
By product of the steel industry
Produced in blast furnaces
Highly cementitious
Hydrates similarly to Portland cement
Production
Iron blast furnace
slag is quenched
it is then ground to a fine
power
Pros and Cons
Improves workability
Lower water demand
Higher paste volume
Higher strength potential
Using 120 grade
Longer setting time
Decreased permeability
Performs well in freeze
thaw tests
Reduces the effects of ASR
Reduced heat of hydration*
More susceptible to drying
shrinkage
Slower strength gain*
Pros
Cons
Slag Activity Index
Higher grade GGBFS can be used in larger
percentages
Improves early and ultimate performance
ASTM C989